Why not just buy an older film leica than the M9

Jason has the right idea with going 4x5, but how many photographers these days know what you can do with all the adjustments on a view camera? One thing you just can't do with DSLR's (or other rigid cameras) is change the plane of focus, which is easy to do with a view camera.

http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
 
SLRs have TS lenses
they are portable and fun ;)

Al Kaplan said:
Jason has the right idea with going 4x5, but how many photographers these days know what you can do with all the adjustments on a view camera? One thing you just can't do with DSLR's (or other rigid cameras) is change the plane of focus, which is easy to do with a view camera.

http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
Click to expand...
 
I'd advise to try out someone's M8 and compare with film scans. I have a MP and M3 and use an Imacon Flextight II for scanning I compare the M8 more to my medium format scans than the 35mms in terms of resolution. In some cases, the film scans have a certain unique look but, for color, many more cases of off-color problems that need a lot of post process tweaking.
 
wow! I see now why people have to claim their medium(film) when presenting a picture. they have invented a machine for everything!
 
I agree with JSU about what can be accomplished with the hands to make a master print, then scan that.

Lately I've been playing with scanning off of old contact sheets! I've been posting them on my blog pretty much straight up, dust spots, crop marks, film perforations and all. For some photos I really like the effect. I'm thinking of making some gelatin silver prints like that.
 
Last edited:
Canon recently released two new Tilt Shift lenses, one is 17mm and the other is 24mm, get both or just one of them ;-)

When you shoot landscape, I would say that rangefinder cameras are not the best option especially if you're going to use neutral density filters...
 
The first time I printed a file from my M8 on my Epson R2400 I was quite amazed ... on smooth matt paper the detail was impressive as was the colour.

I've never seen a drum scan of a good 35mm colour negative so personally I'm in no position to compare. I've had a look at the price of professional 35mm drum scanning in this country and I was shocked ... it made the price of the M8's qualities seem quite reasonable over an extended period.

A scan from anything less than a drum scanner would be unlikely to compare to an M8 file IMO!
 
of course not. why would you shoot film then scan it to print it back to analog.
how would a real colour negative print done by enlarger compare?
 
If we are going to be silly about it, the quality you want can be achieved with a 4"x5" camera, transparency film (sheet or a 6x9cm rollfilm back) and printing to Ilfochrome. You will be astonished, you will also need a second mortgage and a lot of time.

The more practical alternative would an old Hasselblad, Pentacon or Mamiya and print yourself for black-and-white or colour. You won't have the view-camera movements anymore of course and the tilt-and-shift lenses available don't do much in comparison.

Nearly forgot, the 'old' Hasselblads can still use their new medium-format digital backs too - though it might be necessary to hire rather than buy....
 
Last edited:
Yep, your money will go much further if you buy film Ms and film. You can see by my signature I'm not a big digital fan but I'll be the first to say that if your goal is large color prints from the 35mm format, digital is far better than color neg film. The digital Ms are also great for black and white. Check out Martini's gallery here for some excellent black and white photography with the M8.
I like to shoot color slide, for which there is no digital equal, and I personally prefer the film-to-digital workflow of shooting, developing and yes, scanning film. I find it more cost effective and less time consuming than digital capture.
Of course we all have different opinions on this issue!
 
I use an M8, M7 and Nikon 5000

I use an M8, M7 and Nikon 5000

Hi, I use both a digital and analog leica. I find when I shoot at slow speeds and develop carefully in rodinal, I can get BW scans that max out the resolution on the Nikon ( a full 22MP, right at the film grain). If I shoot anything faster than ISO25, he resolution goes down to the point where ISO100-200 color slides give me about the same (admittedly unscientific) image quality as the M8 when printed at comparable sizes. An M9 would likely approximate the best results I have been able to achieve on film in terms of resolution, but there is also the matter of dynamic range. Film can capture more of the visible spectrum than any digital sensor due to the limitations on analog-to-digital converters. And when you capture that range on film and scan using a HDRi technique, you can gain more flexibility in using the parts of the dynamic range that you desire to appear in the print, whereas an incorrect exposure on any digital camera will lose that information.

In short, the M9 will likely equal the best results of 35m film for resolution, but not for dynamic range, meaning that it would be an enormous convenience to use an M9 or conversely, a major pain to go the extra mile for wide dynamic range shots on film
 
Praxis Unitas said:
Hi, I use both a digital and analog leica. I find when I shoot at slow speeds and develop carefully in rodinal, I can get BW scans that max out the resolution on the Nikon ( a full 22MP, right at the film grain). If I shoot anything faster than ISO25, he resolution goes down to the point where ISO100-200 color slides give me about the same (admittedly unscientific) image quality as the M8 when printed at comparable sizes.
Click to expand...

This probably isn't the right forum for this discussion, but I am very curious. What 35mm BW film are you using, and what dilution/time/temp in Rodinal?

The reason I ask is that I love Rodinal for its long shelf-life and easy mixing of just enough to do a couple rolls, but I've never found it to be particularly fine-grained no matter what film I used.

Also I'm curious as to your scanning technique, because I've scanned several E6 films in the ISO 50-100 range using my 4000dpi film scanner and VueScan including in multi-pass mode, and can't get anywhere near the resolution, or as much DR, of files from the M8.

I'd like to know how to get the results you do!
 
M9 for Colour Photography!

M9 for Colour Photography!

Mephiloco said:
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.
Click to expand...


I have a Canon FS4000US, bought it back in 2003 (I think) - at first I never changed the auto scanning but when I used manual scanning and tweaked the lens settings, I was able to achieve scans similar to pro lab 'high res' scans and sometimes even better.

Anyway, I would like to use Leica M Lenses and would prefer a digital 'full frame' M9 to use with them for colour photography. If there is no M9 and I have to live with a Leica MP and colour film instead - then I am sure I could cope.

For B&W film - I will stick with my evil Nikon FM3a SLR and AI-s Lenses.

Richard.
 
I used to think the same thing. Then I gave the older film camera-develop-scan-rescan-workflow process a try. Believe me -- it's not the same thing. (Ref: the original post.)

/T
 
Last edited:
Hi Res Scan - Lab Tests!

Hi Res Scan - Lab Tests!

scottyb70 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Recently I did some tests with Jessops for hi res scanning of Ektar 100 colour negative film and the digital scans turned out pretty good. You can see the results and full size images at ---

http://www.lawrencephotographic.com/Articles/Ektar 100/ektar100.htm

Richard
 
No need to handle film (going to a shop for development, scanning, storing negatives) is priceless!

All that film handling almost drove me away from my hobby a few years ago. And I still learn a lot from the (almost) instant feedback when I look at the files on my mac.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom