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!
