zwarte_kat
Well-known
This is long, sorry...
Recently I have been doing some small tests shooting and printing photos from different analog/digital cameras: 35mm film, MF film, GXR A12 mount, X100, GRDIII etc.
I printed all at a store (Kitamura in Shinjuku, Tokyo) and concluded the following:
1. The 35mm film prints look better when I give them the negatives, compared with scans (V700). I am quite disappointed about this scanner's 35mm scan performance. It's even visible on postcard size.
2. When I gave them the negatives, the brightness of the prints was always acceptable for me, while sometimes digital images I had edited were a slight bit too dark.
3. The X100 and GXR gave more detailed prints than film, though I liked the film structure. The GXR prints were nicer overall, but some BW X100 prints had a nice strong contrast. I had edited them like that though.
Now here is the thing: I have been trying to get into digital for my "street" work, but I always find myself coming back to film, and in particular my little CLE. I can just ROLL with that thing! But sometimes, when I look at some of my shots that I like, I can't help but think: "how great would that have looked on an M9!" (not that my shots are that amazing, but I like them!). Still, film has this nice contrast and structure to it.
Regardless, I am moving in with my GF, and we'll have a ridiculously small room. She has no problem with me filling that room up with stuff, but I really don't want to do that myself. I am also getting sick of scanning.
So the idea is: Ditch the huge scanner, buy no more 35mm film, sell all my camera's except for my Mamiya 6 and maybe the X100. Then get an M9, or possibly an M8. The high Iso sucks, but I prefer shooting during the day anyway. Now I will be able to work with just a laptop and camera. The occasional MF film I shoot I will have the store scanned and printed.
I often see the M9 here on this forum, compared to other digital cameras, but not so much against film rangefinders:
1. Do any of you think that 35mm film still looks better than the shots on the M9? All up to iso 1600, and without doing your own film developing/printing etc.?
2. Film shooters, what if you could trade in your shot rolls for 19MP scans at the same quality as an M9 (drumscan?), for the same cost as developing them? You'd lose the negatives though.
3. What if you could rent an M9 for 2 years for the same money that you would otherwise spend on buying, developing, and scanning film? After that period you could choose to do another year or two, or simply buy the camera if you pay the remainder of the original price. Could be the new or second hand price/camera.
I am sure you can see what I am getting at: Though an M9 is expensive compared to other digital cameras, it's not such a bad deal when you get a 2nd hand one as a 2 year plan and then sell it. Especially when the alternative is film.
Let's say I shoot 2 rolls a week. Sometimes a cheap BW film, sometimes a nice portra, on average ¥600 per roll ($6?). So ¥1200 per week. Then add developing for 2 rolls: ¥1000. Comes to ¥2200 per week, not counting travel expenses etc.
(Then I still need to scan, but I used to do that myself.)
¥2200 x 52 x 2 = ¥228.000 for 2 years.
I can buy an M9 2nd hand for ¥500.000. Could I sell it in two years for ¥272.000? If the M8 is any indication, I think I can, and that camera has much more imperfections then the M9, even when it was new.
Aren't film shooters still shooting with a film rangefinder because they compare the M9 to "compromise digital rangefinder equivalents", instead of comparing the M9 directly to their film workflow?
Sorry for the long rant, but it is a big decision, and I would like to get some of your views! Just answer the parts that you want!
cheers!
Recently I have been doing some small tests shooting and printing photos from different analog/digital cameras: 35mm film, MF film, GXR A12 mount, X100, GRDIII etc.
I printed all at a store (Kitamura in Shinjuku, Tokyo) and concluded the following:
1. The 35mm film prints look better when I give them the negatives, compared with scans (V700). I am quite disappointed about this scanner's 35mm scan performance. It's even visible on postcard size.
2. When I gave them the negatives, the brightness of the prints was always acceptable for me, while sometimes digital images I had edited were a slight bit too dark.
3. The X100 and GXR gave more detailed prints than film, though I liked the film structure. The GXR prints were nicer overall, but some BW X100 prints had a nice strong contrast. I had edited them like that though.
Now here is the thing: I have been trying to get into digital for my "street" work, but I always find myself coming back to film, and in particular my little CLE. I can just ROLL with that thing! But sometimes, when I look at some of my shots that I like, I can't help but think: "how great would that have looked on an M9!" (not that my shots are that amazing, but I like them!). Still, film has this nice contrast and structure to it.
Regardless, I am moving in with my GF, and we'll have a ridiculously small room. She has no problem with me filling that room up with stuff, but I really don't want to do that myself. I am also getting sick of scanning.
So the idea is: Ditch the huge scanner, buy no more 35mm film, sell all my camera's except for my Mamiya 6 and maybe the X100. Then get an M9, or possibly an M8. The high Iso sucks, but I prefer shooting during the day anyway. Now I will be able to work with just a laptop and camera. The occasional MF film I shoot I will have the store scanned and printed.
I often see the M9 here on this forum, compared to other digital cameras, but not so much against film rangefinders:
1. Do any of you think that 35mm film still looks better than the shots on the M9? All up to iso 1600, and without doing your own film developing/printing etc.?
2. Film shooters, what if you could trade in your shot rolls for 19MP scans at the same quality as an M9 (drumscan?), for the same cost as developing them? You'd lose the negatives though.
3. What if you could rent an M9 for 2 years for the same money that you would otherwise spend on buying, developing, and scanning film? After that period you could choose to do another year or two, or simply buy the camera if you pay the remainder of the original price. Could be the new or second hand price/camera.
I am sure you can see what I am getting at: Though an M9 is expensive compared to other digital cameras, it's not such a bad deal when you get a 2nd hand one as a 2 year plan and then sell it. Especially when the alternative is film.
Let's say I shoot 2 rolls a week. Sometimes a cheap BW film, sometimes a nice portra, on average ¥600 per roll ($6?). So ¥1200 per week. Then add developing for 2 rolls: ¥1000. Comes to ¥2200 per week, not counting travel expenses etc.
(Then I still need to scan, but I used to do that myself.)
¥2200 x 52 x 2 = ¥228.000 for 2 years.
I can buy an M9 2nd hand for ¥500.000. Could I sell it in two years for ¥272.000? If the M8 is any indication, I think I can, and that camera has much more imperfections then the M9, even when it was new.
Aren't film shooters still shooting with a film rangefinder because they compare the M9 to "compromise digital rangefinder equivalents", instead of comparing the M9 directly to their film workflow?
Sorry for the long rant, but it is a big decision, and I would like to get some of your views! Just answer the parts that you want!
cheers!
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
Economics aside, I found out that I liked the color and general look I was getting from film more than what I was getting from my Sony A900, and more than M9 samples I see everyday on this and other forums. So when I switched to RF, I went the film path, eventhough arguably with the price of 2 new Zeiss Ikon and 1 used M6, I could have easily bought a used M9 or even 2 used M8. Go with what you like, not what you think is best.
250swb
Well-known
I think film does look better than an M9 file straight out of the camera.
But if I stop sitting on my hands and break out Lightroom or Photoshop like I am supposed to do then the M9 file can easily match film and surpass it. A digital file is a starting point, make of it what you will, find the look you want and make a pre-set in ACR, alter each individually, it doesn't matter. You choose a film because you want colour, B&W, high contrast, low contrast, grain etc. So it doesn't seem feasible that you shouldn't do this with your RAW file as well. But this is what many of the 'I tried digital and didn't like it' lobby don't understand, its not up to a techie at Solms to deliver the style of images you want, they can only deliver a good average, it is down to the photographer to stamp his or her character on the digital image.
Steve
But if I stop sitting on my hands and break out Lightroom or Photoshop like I am supposed to do then the M9 file can easily match film and surpass it. A digital file is a starting point, make of it what you will, find the look you want and make a pre-set in ACR, alter each individually, it doesn't matter. You choose a film because you want colour, B&W, high contrast, low contrast, grain etc. So it doesn't seem feasible that you shouldn't do this with your RAW file as well. But this is what many of the 'I tried digital and didn't like it' lobby don't understand, its not up to a techie at Solms to deliver the style of images you want, they can only deliver a good average, it is down to the photographer to stamp his or her character on the digital image.
Steve
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Your time is invaluable. What is the opportunity cost of scanning? Is it greater or less than the cost of the M9 when you add up all other values?
The M9 equates to over 1000 rolls of good film or just over half that plus professional processing here in the city I live in (Philadelphia, Pa, USA) but that lab also happens to be the last pro lab in the city so we either use them, take a chance at a drugstore or chain photo place (only 2 of them left) or develop ourselves.
So, lets say 550 rolls of film plus processing at our pro lab (no scanning, just developing.) If you add scanning then it's about 300 rolls of film with process and scan. While I certainly can shoot 300 rolls of film in a year, I haven't shot that rapidly since I was a photographer in the Navy years ago.
YET...
I still own an M9. I used to have both an M9 and an M8 because I like shooting with two M bodies and not changing lenses. I still miss that other digital but I only used it on assignment or carried it as a backup. I've owned the M9 now for 13 months and have shot maybe 4500 frames with it. During half that time I also had the M8 which saw some duty. Also note that the M9 was out of commission and at the Leica service center for repair for almost 4 months. Currently it still needs to go in for some issues but I still have a few jobs that need to get shot and now have no backup.
That brings up the incidental costs of repair and opportunity cost of repair time. Leica service is slow. Unless you can walk in to the Leica factory at Solms and have an appointment to have your camera serviced, you will be waiting months. There have been good and bad experiences with Leica service but keep in mind that I'm talking about the New Jersey office which is always backlogged with work and is the only place in the country which services the M9.
It's a fantastic tool. I regard it as the finest digital camera for miniature format but use of the M9 has its own risks and pitfalls. As you have an X100 you would not be as adversely affected as I would should your M9 need immediate servicing but if it's your primary shooter, get a backup. Now, my backup is an M4 or an M4-P. The former has basically never failed me barring severe insult on the part of the shooter (two incidents years ago caused the camera to fail).
Then there is GAS. If you get an M9 you're going to be looking through the RFF classifieds (or some other sales venue), maybe for a lens and you'll see a gorgeous M body for a good price or a beat to hell M body for a steal. You already have M lenses, so having a film body won't hurt' will it? That's how I got my M4-P, kind of.
Don't rationalize photography to the point that it's a number crunching game. It's an art and a craft and a feeling. If the M9 will help you shoot more, get it. If you love film, there is nothing wrong with that either.
Phil Forrest
The M9 equates to over 1000 rolls of good film or just over half that plus professional processing here in the city I live in (Philadelphia, Pa, USA) but that lab also happens to be the last pro lab in the city so we either use them, take a chance at a drugstore or chain photo place (only 2 of them left) or develop ourselves.
So, lets say 550 rolls of film plus processing at our pro lab (no scanning, just developing.) If you add scanning then it's about 300 rolls of film with process and scan. While I certainly can shoot 300 rolls of film in a year, I haven't shot that rapidly since I was a photographer in the Navy years ago.
YET...
I still own an M9. I used to have both an M9 and an M8 because I like shooting with two M bodies and not changing lenses. I still miss that other digital but I only used it on assignment or carried it as a backup. I've owned the M9 now for 13 months and have shot maybe 4500 frames with it. During half that time I also had the M8 which saw some duty. Also note that the M9 was out of commission and at the Leica service center for repair for almost 4 months. Currently it still needs to go in for some issues but I still have a few jobs that need to get shot and now have no backup.
That brings up the incidental costs of repair and opportunity cost of repair time. Leica service is slow. Unless you can walk in to the Leica factory at Solms and have an appointment to have your camera serviced, you will be waiting months. There have been good and bad experiences with Leica service but keep in mind that I'm talking about the New Jersey office which is always backlogged with work and is the only place in the country which services the M9.
It's a fantastic tool. I regard it as the finest digital camera for miniature format but use of the M9 has its own risks and pitfalls. As you have an X100 you would not be as adversely affected as I would should your M9 need immediate servicing but if it's your primary shooter, get a backup. Now, my backup is an M4 or an M4-P. The former has basically never failed me barring severe insult on the part of the shooter (two incidents years ago caused the camera to fail).
Then there is GAS. If you get an M9 you're going to be looking through the RFF classifieds (or some other sales venue), maybe for a lens and you'll see a gorgeous M body for a good price or a beat to hell M body for a steal. You already have M lenses, so having a film body won't hurt' will it? That's how I got my M4-P, kind of.
Don't rationalize photography to the point that it's a number crunching game. It's an art and a craft and a feeling. If the M9 will help you shoot more, get it. If you love film, there is nothing wrong with that either.
Phil Forrest
maddoc
... likes film again.
The reason why I bought the V700 initially was the price I was quoted at Yodobashi Camera to have a single roll of 120 film scanned... Outrageous expensive and all of my friends who started shooting MF bought the same scanner sooner or later for the same reason...
Another point is reliability, I was just chatting with a friend today who sent his M9 for the third time this year to Leica to get it fixed ... A backup film-camera that takes M-mount lenses would be advisable.
About scans - 135 BW - that I could get from my V700, were way better than any lab-scan, be it Kitamura, Yodobashi or a similar lab in Germany.
If I would exclusively shoot color, had the money for a backup camera then the M9 could be an option, just my 2¥ ...
Another point is reliability, I was just chatting with a friend today who sent his M9 for the third time this year to Leica to get it fixed ... A backup film-camera that takes M-mount lenses would be advisable.
About scans - 135 BW - that I could get from my V700, were way better than any lab-scan, be it Kitamura, Yodobashi or a similar lab in Germany.
If I would exclusively shoot color, had the money for a backup camera then the M9 could be an option, just my 2¥ ...
zwarte_kat
Well-known
I guess I love shooting with film, it's simplicity, taking a shot is so... definitive. With digital you have to turn on the camera, do all these settings, and you're to tempted to review your images all the time.
Everything that comes after the shot with film though, I hate. The waiting, the scanning. storing the negs.
The dust for F's sake!
Guess I have a love/hate relationship with film. If only they made a digital CLE...
Everything that comes after the shot with film though, I hate. The waiting, the scanning. storing the negs.
The dust for F's sake!
Guess I have a love/hate relationship with film. If only they made a digital CLE...
marcoinhawaii
Member
Rent an m9
Rent an m9
Hi,
Since I am able to rent an M9 here in Honolulu, I can make a better decision on whether or not to purchase one. I would think you can get a rental in Japan at a reasonable price.
Rent an M9 and see what you think after shooting.
Rent an m9
Hi,
Since I am able to rent an M9 here in Honolulu, I can make a better decision on whether or not to purchase one. I would think you can get a rental in Japan at a reasonable price.
Rent an M9 and see what you think after shooting.
thegman
Veteran
I think if you're getting bads scans out of the V700 at postcard size, then there is something wrong. The V700 does not excel at 35mm, but postcard size I think is easily well within it's grasp. You have to ask yourself what is wrong with the scans, colour? grain? sharpness? Colour is easily fixed, and sharpness too, if you're unhappy with grain though, then maybe digital is better for you.
As for economics, if you shoot lots, digital will always work out cheaper in the long run, if you shoot moderate to low amounts, then film will likely work out cheaper.
I appreciate the love/hate relationship with film. I love the look, the delayed gratification, the non-electronic cameras, the science, and it's authenticity. I hate the scratched negs, poor development, and the clutter of the negs I don't really need but don't want to throw away. I also don't like the cost much, but that's only really an issue after a big trip, when I've shot dozens of rolls.
Digital is either going to work for you or it's not, and I think the only way to find out is to try it. An M9 is an expensive experiment, so maybe look for a rental, or maybe just pretend your X100 is an M9 and just shoot that for a bit.
As for economics, if you shoot lots, digital will always work out cheaper in the long run, if you shoot moderate to low amounts, then film will likely work out cheaper.
I appreciate the love/hate relationship with film. I love the look, the delayed gratification, the non-electronic cameras, the science, and it's authenticity. I hate the scratched negs, poor development, and the clutter of the negs I don't really need but don't want to throw away. I also don't like the cost much, but that's only really an issue after a big trip, when I've shot dozens of rolls.
Digital is either going to work for you or it's not, and I think the only way to find out is to try it. An M9 is an expensive experiment, so maybe look for a rental, or maybe just pretend your X100 is an M9 and just shoot that for a bit.
zwarte_kat
Well-known
Maddoc, you have beautiful images on your flickr! Maybe I should get a Noctilux for my money
Couldn't check the scan quality that well though, with the low resolutions that you upload.
I just said that the PRINTS were better when I gave them my negatives, rather then my scans. Not sure how they scan and what they do with them before printing. One problem I had was that the printing machine only took my exported JPEGs and not tiffs.
Marcoinhawaii, I actually checked for M9 rentals in Tokyo, but couldn't find any. I have owned an M8 though. An M8 is still an option for me, when I had one I didn't really know how to shoot with it yet, was very stupid of me to buy such an expensive thing! I sold it and went back to basics, only to slowly return to the point of wanting to have a digital rangefinder again.
Couldn't check the scan quality that well though, with the low resolutions that you upload.
I just said that the PRINTS were better when I gave them my negatives, rather then my scans. Not sure how they scan and what they do with them before printing. One problem I had was that the printing machine only took my exported JPEGs and not tiffs.
Marcoinhawaii, I actually checked for M9 rentals in Tokyo, but couldn't find any. I have owned an M8 though. An M8 is still an option for me, when I had one I didn't really know how to shoot with it yet, was very stupid of me to buy such an expensive thing! I sold it and went back to basics, only to slowly return to the point of wanting to have a digital rangefinder again.
maddoc
... likes film again.
Thanks !! ... and I absolute agree about interweb and Print quality. Hierher, I have printed V700 Evans up to 10x enlargement (36x24 cm for 135) and also used A4 prints at some small group exhibitions where I participated.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I went through this same thing a while back, and ended up ditching color film completely. I still work with B&W film, but the cost of decent color processing & scanning combined with the lack of reliable availability of the papers and chemistry I was using to wet print color made me switch. I have not missed color film one bit. Opening up Photoshop and working on an M8 or M9 file is so much more pleasurable than opening up a file from a scanned negative. No comparison.
bigeye
Well-known
If you're shooting Leica glass on the CLE, the M9 is doing all it can to match it.
.
There are a lot of variables at play here... I don't think you can say this absolutely. Do not underestimate the M9.
You either work in a darkroom or you work in lightroom. Each requires time to get the best results. I find it funny that people expect digital to be great with no work when film is not great without work either.
Just as you would in a darkroom in the past (or present).
Last edited:
Huh? Can you explain?
defconracing
Member
Economics...
Economics...
I had the same issue, and was shooting with an M3 and an M6 (M6 for color negs and slides and M3 for b&w work). I was going through so much $ in color processing costs that I decided to ditch out on color film and pick up an M9 (also, the film stuff took up too much room). I ended up with a user grade M2 so that I can still shoot b&w. I work as a T/A at a university, so I needed to be able to still shoot film and make silver prints to keep myself sharp at it. Although there is still something tonality wise about film that I really love, I have gotten very close to that look with a lot of work in photoshop in addition to a phenomenal program called alienskin exposure 3. While exposure 3 can from it's base appearance look like a "preset" program, there is quite a bit of play as far as editing decisions, and I usually just run my already PS'd file through it after doing all my edits. I have made many many 24x36" inch prints on an Epson 7900 with these files and they look gorgeous and very well defined even an inch or so from the print
Also note to the OP: Check your scanning workflow, I've done a bunch of the previously mentioned 24x36 prints with scanned 35mm Portra 160NC and they've come out fairly well, and super A3 prints look very good.
Below is b&w and a color shot on an M9 and processed this way:
20111126-L1008296 by mpotiker, on Flickr
Occupy Boston- Maria the Medic. by mpotiker, on Flickr
20111115-L1007805-Edit by mpotiker, on Flickr
It does a fairly good knockoff of color transparency film as well:
20111120-L1008052 by mpotiker, on Flickr
Economics...
I had the same issue, and was shooting with an M3 and an M6 (M6 for color negs and slides and M3 for b&w work). I was going through so much $ in color processing costs that I decided to ditch out on color film and pick up an M9 (also, the film stuff took up too much room). I ended up with a user grade M2 so that I can still shoot b&w. I work as a T/A at a university, so I needed to be able to still shoot film and make silver prints to keep myself sharp at it. Although there is still something tonality wise about film that I really love, I have gotten very close to that look with a lot of work in photoshop in addition to a phenomenal program called alienskin exposure 3. While exposure 3 can from it's base appearance look like a "preset" program, there is quite a bit of play as far as editing decisions, and I usually just run my already PS'd file through it after doing all my edits. I have made many many 24x36" inch prints on an Epson 7900 with these files and they look gorgeous and very well defined even an inch or so from the print
Also note to the OP: Check your scanning workflow, I've done a bunch of the previously mentioned 24x36 prints with scanned 35mm Portra 160NC and they've come out fairly well, and super A3 prints look very good.
Below is b&w and a color shot on an M9 and processed this way:
20111126-L1008296 by mpotiker, on Flickr
Occupy Boston- Maria the Medic. by mpotiker, on Flickr
20111115-L1007805-Edit by mpotiker, on Flickr
It does a fairly good knockoff of color transparency film as well:
20111120-L1008052 by mpotiker, on Flickr
Last edited:
defconracing
Member
I'm going to throw a more images up that show how well it can copy the b&w film aesthetic (imo).
20111117-L1007859 by mpotiker, on Flickr
20111117-L1007866 by mpotiker, on Flickr
20111024-L1007329 by mpotiker, on Flickr
Then this is with a 1DS MKii and a Zeiss 35mm 1.4
Untitled by mpotiker, on Flickr
20111117-L1007859 by mpotiker, on Flickr
20111117-L1007866 by mpotiker, on Flickr
20111024-L1007329 by mpotiker, on Flickr
Then this is with a 1DS MKii and a Zeiss 35mm 1.4
Untitled by mpotiker, on Flickr
Last edited:
furcafe
Veteran
For 35mm-type, high-volume, shooting, economics & convenience will almost always favor digital over film, even when your only digital option is an extremely expensive body like the M9. Although I never liked developing film or scanning, I still shoot lots of 35mm film because I prefer the aesthetics of film (except for low-light color), enjoy shooting w/my collection of film cameras (most of which will never have a digital equivalent), & make enough money to pay for developing & (most) scanning.
However, if you're not rolling in money, unless you have an extensive set of Leica screw or M mount glass or plan on building a collection in the future, I would just stick w/the X100 (perhaps getting another 1 as a backup) rather than get the M9.
However, if you're not rolling in money, unless you have an extensive set of Leica screw or M mount glass or plan on building a collection in the future, I would just stick w/the X100 (perhaps getting another 1 as a backup) rather than get the M9.
Paddy C
Unused film collector
Some general thoughts...
To be frank, I think you have a sort of muddled approach/thought process here. And unless you nail down some basics you are going to be going around in circles.
1. The first problem is that you are handing a wide variety of file types to a lab. Is this lab good? Do they know what they are doing with everything you are handing them?
IMHO, except for a few high-end labs that you could work with on a custom basis, labs cannot be trusted for development, printing, or scanning of either colour neg or black and white. This I see as the simple truth.
Dealing with the custom labs is going to get very expensive and this is where you start having to make decisions about what you are shooting and what your aims are.
2. The V700 is not ideal, but it is capable. I just had a calendar printed through and on-demand service which had a combination of 35mm negs and MF negs (all black and white). All scanned on a V700. Images were reproduced at 300dpi, 8" x 7" and the 35mm was just fine. So you need to figure out what you're doing before making a call on the V700's capabilities.
3. In the long run, at some point, digital is always going to be less expensive than film. You get there very quickly if you are shooting MF colour and getting good scans done. Much more slowly if you are shooting B&W 35mm, developing yourself, and scanning/printing yourself.
4. Digital is 100% about post (news flash: so is film). I see an amazing (to me) amount of people with M9s who turn out plastic looking colour files. Files that could easily have been made with any number of much less expensive cameras. They look awful. As others have pointed out, you need to learn how to work with the output.
To be frank, I think you have a sort of muddled approach/thought process here. And unless you nail down some basics you are going to be going around in circles.
1. The first problem is that you are handing a wide variety of file types to a lab. Is this lab good? Do they know what they are doing with everything you are handing them?
IMHO, except for a few high-end labs that you could work with on a custom basis, labs cannot be trusted for development, printing, or scanning of either colour neg or black and white. This I see as the simple truth.
Dealing with the custom labs is going to get very expensive and this is where you start having to make decisions about what you are shooting and what your aims are.
2. The V700 is not ideal, but it is capable. I just had a calendar printed through and on-demand service which had a combination of 35mm negs and MF negs (all black and white). All scanned on a V700. Images were reproduced at 300dpi, 8" x 7" and the 35mm was just fine. So you need to figure out what you're doing before making a call on the V700's capabilities.
3. In the long run, at some point, digital is always going to be less expensive than film. You get there very quickly if you are shooting MF colour and getting good scans done. Much more slowly if you are shooting B&W 35mm, developing yourself, and scanning/printing yourself.
4. Digital is 100% about post (news flash: so is film). I see an amazing (to me) amount of people with M9s who turn out plastic looking colour files. Files that could easily have been made with any number of much less expensive cameras. They look awful. As others have pointed out, you need to learn how to work with the output.
Tom Niblick
Well-known
After 40 plus years of being up to my wrists in fixer, I stopped shooting film when I dropped of a box of 4x5 for E6 processing at the local lab. The kid behind the desk opened the box "to get the rolls out".
Do I miss film. In a word, no. I'm getting far better results from my M9 than I got from my M4 with less work and far less expense.
Scanning is a huge PIA. As is retouching out dust spots and scratches. And the cabinets full of slides and film strips slowly getting mold spots take up too much room.
And the way your hands and clothes smell after a long darkroom session - yuck. I've never found a woman who was fond of that cologne.
No, I won't go back. Ever. Ever.
Buy the M9. Or a good used M8. Keep it for as long as you can. It should pay for itself in a year or two with film and processing savings. After that, every shot is free.
Do I miss film. In a word, no. I'm getting far better results from my M9 than I got from my M4 with less work and far less expense.
Scanning is a huge PIA. As is retouching out dust spots and scratches. And the cabinets full of slides and film strips slowly getting mold spots take up too much room.
And the way your hands and clothes smell after a long darkroom session - yuck. I've never found a woman who was fond of that cologne.
No, I won't go back. Ever. Ever.
Buy the M9. Or a good used M8. Keep it for as long as you can. It should pay for itself in a year or two with film and processing savings. After that, every shot is free.