Money Aside: M9 or M-X & Best Scanner

Money Aside: M9 or M-X & Best Scanner

  • Total voters
    500
Tom: you just made me see the light(!), thanks!

Tom: you just made me see the light(!), thanks!

Been dismissing this up till now because I do backups, and the odds of losing all are low. But you are right, nothing says anyone will maintain my stuff when I pass away, and everything that has not been printed will very likely be lost forever. Not suggesting that my life's pictures have any "value" for the rest of the world, but...yeah...would be nice to give the option to people doing flea markets, souvenirs, historians, etc, or even a great grand kid curious about family tree.

Tom: would guess that most of what you found for this project were prints rather than negatives, no? Negatives are not that easy to file: takes time and method and space. Most people kept/keep prints in albums and shoe boxes, but loose the negs I'd think....

I keep wondering what percentage of snaps currently get printed. With Flickr, digital frames, etc, I would assume only a very very small percentage gets printed. Very different from the "old" world, and, you are right, kind of scary....


Tom A said:
To put this in perspective: for the last 6 month I have been working with a group here in Vancouver, preparing a show on early swedish immigrants to British Columbia. Our cut off date was 1940, but a substantial amount of the photo selected and found have been from 1880-1920. OK, most of these have come from peoples photo album and as these people came to Canada for a "better" life - photography was not high on their list. Most used Kodak's box cameras with limited exposure and focus capability - but even after 90-120 years, these photos could be scanned and printed - in some case as big as 11"x17". The question begs, how many of the digital files shot today will be around in 2120? I am not talking about professional portraits or commercial photography - these are family snap-shots, settlements, some showing working the land or taking part of celebrations. At the time they were just documenting life - today they are historical artifacts! If you look at photography from days past, the glossy commercial stuff is of limited interest - the family snap shot truly tells you what life was like, with babies, weddings, funerals, birthdays etc.
I fear that we can loose a substantial amount of this material over time with the digital workflow. Manufacturers make sweeping statements about the longevity about their products "Will last for 200 years" (if it is put in a climate controlled vault!) - by the time we find out that they were wrong - it is too late.
I can see digital having a place, particularly in news and commercial applications. It is convinient, technologically amazing (Nikon D3s with 104 000 iso top speed!!!!!) - but what about the modest snap shot or family history? Doing a project like this is humbling - you see the work that went into clearing land, digging for gold, build roads and railways to open up the province or continent. We often take it for granted - but someone did the heavy lifting 100 years ago - and we have benefitted from all of it.
Click to expand...
 
i agree with Tom,

no money issue ?
MP + decent scanner,

for simplicity,
MP + Noritsu c41 machine/ e6 processor + color film / loads of Ilford XP2 for B/W

and just concentrating on the shooting part.
 
Because the cost isn't the question. Cost is a major part in the real world issue but I'm asking people to remove that variable because my interest is simply based on two different photographic processes. Obviously the answer would be both, but that's not an interesting question...it's not what you want, it's how you want your work to exist, and how you want to make it.
 
Then its easy,light in...........light out,guaranteed 100 per-cent transfer,all the goodness stays intact,...full cream jersey milk.
 
I have many Leica/Nikon film body's and a Coolscan 5000/9000 scanner combination.
The M9 is a nice camera, but I'll stick to my film based Leica life.

I saw Imacon 343 scans and the Imacons outperform the Coolscan images, so my only wish is to have enough money and get the X5.

For colour I'm using Nikon DSLR and for family occasions Provia slides. I love my Leica Pradovit projector, projected slides gives me a totally different viewing experience. The quality is also much better than digitally projected images. (considering a "normal" budget)
 
Last edited:
Well, I'm using MPs and film and an M8. I didn't vote in the poll, because I can't judge the Imacon scanner. Furthermore, money really isn't the issue. The issue is time!

- If I had unlimited TIME, I would go with film and scanning.

- I'm really not 100% satisifed with the Nikon 5000 and black and white. That darn LED white light really brings out the grain. For color, it's super though!!! Is the Imacon better with black and white?!

Best, JP
 
I don't know if the Imacon is better with B&W, but I'm guessing it gets the whole neg sharp unlike the Coolscan 5/5000. More importantly, it would let my scan my 120 negs too.
 
I haven't voted, sorry...I'm one of 'those,' simply because I'm lazy and time is a major issue for me.

Ideally I'd probably want a good technician to develop and scan my negs to my instruction. This would allow me to use my favoured M6 bodies but not have the issue of delay in producing images that I often have, unless it's work and then it clearly becomes a priority.

I have one M8 body which I use and enjoy but does not quite hit the mark for me in some areas i.e. IR filters on lenses and my personal inability to swap quickly between outfits. Obviously if I had two M8 bodies this would be less of an issue as I would set up for a dedicated outfit around those bodies.

I haven't had an opportunity to try the M9 so I can only go by information from other sources but it would seem that the M9 has the potential to replace my current film kit. So based on money being no object I believe I would opt for two M9 bodies and go fully digital over film and a top end scanner... unless I have any offers to process and scan my films for me 😉

The joy of developing and printing is still there but time, ease and advancement push me more and more to digital.
 
The advantage of shooting film and scanning it is actually that you can really use all those camera's you love so much instead of having them gathering dust in the drawer.

Imagine you can really use the full potential of your Olympus OM1/2 or Contax G2 or Hexar RF or even your Nikon FM3!

I love to use these in combination with my D300 and Coolscan 5000. But if you ask me if I'd buy an M9? I would say YES (if I wanted to spend this insane amount of money on a camera).

So I guess that I only use the Hexar RF with film because a digital RF is simply too expensive. If Zeiss officials read this: If you bring a Digital ZI to the market for the same price as a Nikon D300 and a FF sensor of 12 MP or more I will buy it without a second thought. And, as a bonus, I will then also buy all these lovely lenses you make for this system!

So dear Zeiss officials: what is stopping you!!
 
Jamie123 said:
Forgot to add: If money was no object I'd definitely get into color 8x10 photography 🙂
Click to expand...

Exactly. But every time I do the calculation in my head I end up balancing a trip to some far away place against a dozen sheets of color film (8x10 especially). The trip usually wins 😉


martin
 
Honestly, digital gets seductively easy! I usually spend about an hour to scan a roll with Nikon 9000... Wonder, if this would be just faster to do post-processing in PS. The best combo would be an M9 and an old film M, let's say M3 or an m4
 
When I come home with 20 rolls of TMax that need to be processed, scanned and edited I start itching for digital all over again. Life would be so much simpler if I just plug that SD card into the Mac and all the files are up on Lightroom. And no more dirty looks from the wife with a too sensitive nose for Kodak chemicals. I can choose the files I want, post process, and within minutes hold them in my hands as they come out of the R2400. Sounds like I am talking myself into something...How much is that M9 again?
 
Rayt said:
When I come home with 20 rolls of TMax that need to be processed, scanned and edited I start itching for digital all over again. Life would be so much simpler if I just plug that SD card into the Mac and all the files are up on Lightroom. And no more dirty looks from the wife with a too sensitive nose for Kodak chemicals. I can choose the files I want, post process, and within minutes hold them in my hands as they come out of the R2400. Sounds like I am talking myself into something...How much is that M9 again?
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're right to wonder.

Listen up world: What photographers need is a simple service. Namely, you take your roll(s) of B&W film somewhere, it gets developed, it gets scanned, and a CD is made of the moderate-res scans. Like you can get for C-41 film at any drugstore.

Maybe art supply stores would be a place? I don't know. It just doesn't seem like you should have to mix chemicals in order to do B&W.

I realize that your 20-roll scenario would mean an expensive job, but often this is just one or two rolls, and if you paid a reasonable $5 a roll or something you would do it.

TD
 
Tim, you know that's really a thought.

Maybe I should try an Imacon once just to see, if I like it...

Oh no!!! I think they are rather expensive... :-(

If I like it, that means a sacrifice some place else...

JP
 
Leica M4-P. Nikon CS 9000. No post processing...yet. I will use the glass holder next time.
Ohara-1.jpg





The fact that I've got a more permanent image, I don't have to wait for the camera to boot up after I've turned it on, or to wait while the camera digests the image is important to me.

I take the unprocessed colour film to a local lab to have processed with uncut negs and proofs. I pick the ones I like and scan. No big deal.

Black and white negs, I'll eventually do myself.
 
M9! Photography is a daily thing for me so digital makes sense. I can review faster and learn from mistakes faster. Of course I'll still keep my M7!
 
Last year I ditched digital capture, concentrated on shooting slides only (for colour) and sending just the select ones to a bureau for scanning on an Imacon. It's not as expensive as one might think. I find editorializing oneself this way beneficial to learning and improving.
 
I think you forgot the best and most expensive solution! Get a film body let's say M7 or M4 and pay for scanning to a hypothetical pro lab that has a competent digital service and pro scanners!
Like that no headache with processing til the scans in raw!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom