Why not just buy an older film leica than the M9

[scottyb70]

I was thinking, wouldn't it be less expensive to buy a older film leica and scan the negatives to a high resolution with a film scanner (epson or nikon) instead of buying a new M9. I think you would pretty much get the same quality and have the best of both worlds.
This would be ideal for people that don't have that much money to spend like me. Could someone recommend a decent leica under 1000.00 either with a zeiss lens or leica lens? Rockwell states the zeiss 21 has barely any distortion. My main interest in photography is landscape shooting with the 5d and 17-40, mostly at the 17-20 range and the Canon a-1 with the 17mmm the 17 tends to have alot of distortion when I tilt the camera at an angle. I am interested in purchasing a leica to experiment with and using a wide angle lens that has very little distortion. The only thing I don't like about rangefinders is you can't see the image through the lens and I like to use graduated filters alot during the sunsets and sunrises.

 

[scottyb70]

I was just searching throught the internet and I read that you could use a leica r adaptor for the a1. Can anyone recommend a good adapter?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Scotty,

You're dead right.

There are 3 main reasons to use an M8.2/M9 in colour:

1 You shoot a lot (savings on processing) or need fast results (publication)

2 You don't want the extra hassle of scanning

3 You are addicted to rapid gratification

In b+w, wet processed, you can add

4 Quality, archival imaging and 'look'.

When the M9 comes out I expect to use two Leicas (M9 color, MP B+W) with an original M8 as digi backup (I'll live with the crop) and M4-P or M2 as film back-up.

Cheers,

R.

 

[AusDLK]

Developing and scanning is a PAIN in the you know where.

Okay, some folks like the film development process.

But if anyone really enjoys scanning then I'd be surprised. Camera store scans are usually poor and can never touch the resolution from the M8/M9.

 

[capitalK]

Snappy answers to stupid questions... when most people ask "why are you shooting film?" my answer is simple... "because it's not digital."

 

[paulhart]

Rockwell is right about the Zeiss 21, but I think (from memory) that he's talking about the lens for the Contax G2, which obviously wouldn't fit on a Leica M body.

I think any wideangle will show 'distortion' when you 'tilt the camera at an angle', as you put it. To eliminate what you are talking about, I think you would need a LF camera or an SLR with a shift lens.

Finally - and overlooking the fact that there is no M9 to buy - there is a lot to be said for shooting film and developing a good scanning techinque. I've spent a lot of time shooting with a Mamiya 7ii and a Rolleflex 2.8F recently, and there is something about the images from those cameras that my D700 is incapable of replicating.

 

[bwcolor]

Take a look at this link and some of his other work:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.1.html

These data and his model predates recent progress in digital realm. Film fares poorly when compared to modern digital with regards to resolution and noise, at least in the 35mm format. Now, film has a different look. Noise manifests in a different way. I like digital for color work and if the M9 presents modern noise reduction fast processing and 18 Mpixels, it will be at least the equivalent to 35mm and by many measures superior to film. Also, the workflow is much simpler with digital. The real question for me is do I want to spend seven to nine thousand dollars when I have a Canon 1DMkIII, two Mamiya 7(ii)s and a couple of fine film rangefinder cameras? My answer is that I want the functionality of a fine rangefinder digital camera, but I would prefer a reduced price. More in the 4K range. Ok, Zeiss... How about a near term introduction of such a camera...oh.. and without the mis-steps that Leica seemed to go through.

 

[FrozenInTime]

As an owner of a pair of M6s who is waiting for the M9 ( though I have other DSR kit ), I can assure you that for color and clarity in color landscape photography you are better by far with almost any recent digital than 35mm film. If you want a more artistic interpretation, film is still useful.

If you want to give it a go, the Zeiss ZM 18mm is outstandingly sharp and distortion free. However tilting the camera will always result in what looks like distortion, but is actually geometric reality. You need a wider lens or one with optical axis shift ( EOS TS/E 17mm )http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17ts.shtml

For graduated NDs on LeicaMs, the Lee RF75 system is best as it has index scales, but it's still a bit hit and miss with aligning the graduation without being able to see the result directly.

 

[sojournerphoto]

I was thinking, wouldn't it be less expensive to buy a older film leica and scan the negatives to a high resolution with a film scanner (epson or nikon) instead of buying a new M9. I think you would pretty much get the same quality and have the best of both worlds.
This would be ideal for people that don't have that much money to spend like me. Could someone recommend a decent leica under 1000.00 either with a zeiss lens or leica lens? Rockwell states the zeiss 21 has barely any distortion. My main interest in photography is landscape shooting with the 5d and 17-40, mostly at the 17-20 range and the Canon a-1 with the 17mmm the 17 tends to have alot of distortion when I tilt the camera at an angle. I am interested in purchasing a leica to experiment with and using a wide angle lens that has very little distortion. The only thing I don't like about rangefinders is you can't see the image through the lens and I like to use graduated filters alot during the sunsets and sunrises.

Sorry, I shoot with a 5D, 1Ds3 and film rf. You may well have a disappointing time if you think that 35mm film scanned on a Nikon or epson is going to match up to the touted specs of the M9 (in colour). It will look different, which you may prefer, but if you crave resolution (which Lumious Landscape suggests is the case for most landscape shooters) then the digital solution is likely to deliver in print form. As stated above, the scans you get from labs (Fuji Frontier) are usually pretty poor - you will need to do your own.

If you are unhappy with the 17-40, and many seem to be, there are quite a lot of good wide angle primes that can be fitted to ef mount with adaptors - I use Zeiss 28 and 35 lenses (21 is still too expensive) which are excellent and Leica R lenses also fit. It is easier for landscape work to use these with live view (or fit a screen more suited to manual focus) which would mean a change for your 5D (thereby fulfiling the GAS issue). Either a 5D2 or 1Ds3 would work well.

Alternatively, by a film rf and enjoy a whole new freedom. Uncertain framing and a completely different look to things. A happier back also goes alongside.

Mike

 

[Mephiloco]

Scanners are pretty cheap, and depending on which you get it can scan a whole roll at once, making scan pretty easy. My scanner cost something like $50 (for a Canon FS4000US) and only scans 6 negatives at a time, but it scans up to 4000 dpi, and gives great results. The scanner paid for itself after one roll considering how much the local 'Photoworks' here in New Orleans charges for hi res cans.

For color, if money were no object, I'd go digital. B&W film anyday.

 

[splitimageview]

You'd have to shoot a lot of film to catch up to the price of an M9.

There are some superb scanning services out there, including North Coast which is touted by Rockwell on his site. I've used them...no developing hassles and no scanning hassles, and real dynamic range.

 

[Krosya]

I have to admit - I like a lot of things about digital. It, however, doesnt mean I'll get M9. Not beacuse I dont like the idea of it, but rather bacause Epson RD1s does all I need for now. Plus as far as digital vs film - while film take longer to develop, scan, etc - which I dont really like doing too much, somewhow - nearly every time I prefer results I get from film over digital - both colour and B&W. Thats why I use film for things that are important.

 

[oscroft]

But if anyone really enjoys scanning then I'd be surprised.

I don't particularly dislike it - it's a chore, but an easy one. I use a V750 and can scan 24 frames at a time, so I just load them in, frame them, and leave it going in the background while I carry on with other stuff.

 

[Jeff Day]

I have a Leica MP that I now use for B&W and color, but I plan to keep the MP for B&W and buy an M9 to use for color. I love the look of film, but there are times when I want the instant gratification of digital. ;-)

 

[Roger Hicks]

I have a Leica MP that I now use for B&W and color, but I plan to keep the MP for B&W and buy an M9 to use for color. I love the look of film, but there are times when I want the instant gratification of digital. ;-)

Exactly!

Cheers,

R.

 

[Jason Sprenger]

For 35mm color, I find a dedicated film scanner is necessary to approximate 8mp of color digital resolution, unless you fancy reproduction of film grain. In place of graduated filters, it is possible to record multiple frames at different shutter speeds and combine the result, ie. playing the HDR game.

An alternative to a 35mm RF low distortion wide angle lenses might be 4x5 large format. In place of a 18mm Zeiss lens in 35mm, a 75mm Schneider or Rodenstock lens on a field camera allowing movements remains a formiddable picture-taker. Movements can minimize certain geometric distortions, and with ground-glass viewing, you're not flying blind with graduated filters.

Film and developing costs are higher and the picture taking process is slower. However, a decent flat-bed scanner can capture enough for quite size-able prints and later professional scanning and printing for significantly large images is possible.

 

[sunsworth]

I think you would pretty much get the same quality and have the best of both worlds.

You haven't ever used an M8 have you?

 

[photokalia]

I have a Leica MP that I now use for B&W and color, but I plan to keep the MP for B&W and buy an M9 to use for color. I love the look of film, but there are times when I want the instant gratification of digital. ;-)

I am in the same boat with regard to preferring the look of film but appreciating the instant gratification of digital.

I started off as a digital-only person, and switched to film once I discovered rangefinders only because I could not afford the M8. However, now that I've been shooting film for a while, I'm not sure I like the look of digital as much as the look of film anymore. But definitely looking forward to the convenience of a digital full-frame rangefinder!

 

[daveywaugh]

But if anyone really enjoys scanning then I'd be surprised.

Personally I love scanning - to me it's a part of taking the image in some respects. But I can see your point... I'll also admit to enjoying RAW processing for the same reasons. Funnily enough, despite batch processing, I don't think scanning is that much slower! I still think digital wedding photographers spend more time in post than films ones - even if they do their own processing and scanning.

I find the M9 very exciting and frankly long overdue. Even if I were flush, I still think for my volume, I'd spend my bucks on an MP!

 

[excellent]

With all this "rockwell says" talk I don't know what to think. I wonder what photography would be like these days if everyone just did what they were told. Personally my favourite part about photography was that nobody ever told me what to do and I could try express thoughts that I was unable communicate in words.