Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Digital Leica M9 vs. Bessa R3A 35mm Film
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Film SLR / TLR Cameras
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 10:01 pm    Post subject: Digital Leica M9 vs. Bessa R3A 35mm Film Reply with quote
Tomorrow I plan to do a Leica M9 vs. Voigtlander Bessa R3A 35mm Film camera comparison. You can find more details here:

http://matthewosbornephotography.wordpress.com/2013/10/02/digital-leica-m9-vs-bessa-r3a-35mm-film/

I wanted to ask if anyone else had done a similar experiment, perhaps Leica M9 vs Leica film bodies using black and white film?

If the Leica M9 results are similar to the film photography photos it may well be the end of me shooting 35mm B&W film.

I think Kodak Portra colour film still has the edge over the M9 for colour tones.. (I think)... but the M9 can get close.

I'll share results on the blog once film developed. Wink


PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's like comparing a car with a motorcycle.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 10:11 pm    Post subject: 35mm film vs. Leica M9 Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
It's like comparing a car with a motorcycle.


Can you explain more as I can't see it in my images. Yes they both get from A to B and produce the final image but I am comparing the final picture only, not how the images gets to that stage. I use both so am only looking at the end result. Thanks


PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 10:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
They both produce images, but so does a Polaroid, for instance, which has a yet different purpose.

If you want to see it diachronically, digital comes after film, so it's a new technology and film is the past.
In this case, comparison is not appliable, because when two technologies, old and new, do the same job,
comparison does not make sense, new replaces old, just like colour TV replaced B&W TV.

If you want to see it sinchronically, then you would say that digital makes one kind of image for some purposes,
and film makes a different kind of image, for different purpose.
Example: digital has purpose to create a digital file that is easier to edit, a lot faster to send
(to newspapers, for instance), with a lot more and clearer detail, so files can be enlarged better, and a lot cheaper
cost, so more indicated where lots of photos need to be taken.
Film, now that is not the only technology anymore, has taken a different purpose, to make images that are more
artistic than commercial, more research than consume, more niche than popular, and where the "organic" impression
from the image is more important than the grain or the level of detail.
In this case, either, comparison does not make sense, because one medium has different purpose from the other.
If you search for sharpness, editability, life-like realism, you use digital, not film.
If you search for evocative colours, fine art B&W prints with subtle shadings, you use film, not digital.

For these reasons the comparison does not make sense.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 10:31 pm    Post subject: Film vs. Digital Reply with quote
Thanks for your reply Orio. Your answer makes sense. I moved from a Nikon D800 36mp sensor to film as the digital files were sharp but flat and lifeless. The Leica M9 is different. It occupies middle ground between film and a CMOS sensor. It is not just me that thinks that the Leica M9 Kodak CCD sensor looks more like film. I've read similar views online prior to buying the Leica. The Leica M9 sensor was designed to look like Kodachrome film and is definitely produces images like no other digital sensor I have experienced.

This is why I am making the comparison as M9 photos can look quite film like and organic rather than flat. Not any digital vs. film but specifically the Leica M9.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 10:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Just to add:- You really have to compare a B\W shot with a print using chemicals.



PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 11:15 pm    Post subject: Re: Film vs. Digital Reply with quote
MatthewOsbornePhotography wrote:
The Leica M9 sensor was designed to look like Kodachrome film and is definitely produces images like no other digital sensor I have experienced.


I sure do miss Kodachrome. Before your comment I've been able to successfully ignore the M9, since it is so far out of my reach. But now I find myself wishing the M9 was a whole lot cheaper than it is . . .


PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 11:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio has given some excellent arguments.

I don't see much sense in comparing an M9 to a film Bessa, or any other digital cam to any film cam, either.
Of course, if you want to do it for fun reasons, I'm in. Otherwise they are just two too different tools for the job.

My favoruite analogy (although some do not like it) is that digital vs. chemical photography is just like music from CD and vinyl.
Which one is "better"? It depends what you want and what other elements you have in the chain.
If you have a bad record player but an excellent CD player, vinyl will not stand a chance against the digital recording. And the other way around. How do you develop your film? How do you print it? Or do you scan it? If yes, how? Do you shoot in RAW? How do you process those files? There are so many steps until you get the final result which you can compare that it is not really comparable any more.

But as I said, it can be great fun to shoot the same subjects with an M9 and a Bessa and see what you can get out of it.

Next week,on Wednesday, I will have the chance to shoot with the new Leica M (type 240) again. And this time, I am sure I might also compare it to some other cams, perhaps even with a Leica CL. But not to see which one is the better one, just for fun.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 11:20 pm    Post subject: Re: Film vs. Digital Reply with quote
MatthewOsbornePhotography wrote:
The Leica M9 sensor was designed to look like Kodachrome film


I doubt that this is correct, to be honest.

MatthewOsbornePhotography wrote:
... and is definitely produces images like no other digital sensor I have experienced.


It is true that the images of an M9 (or an M8!) seem to carry some special "timbre", but it's hard to say if that was part of the original design concept or if it is a result of the particular feeling that a Leica M conveys to its user.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 11:30 pm    Post subject: Re: Film vs. Digital Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:


It is true that the images of an M9 (or an M8!) seem to carry some special "timbre", but it's hard to say if that was part of the original design concept or if it is a result of the particular feeling that a Leica M conveys to its user.


It's analogous to the i-Gadget from Apple. There's a cunningly disguised smug-stimulator inside it, that pricks the finger of the users and injects a hormone, causing them to feel good and radiate an air of smugness Smile

Not directed at any Leica users here, honest.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 11:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think I have an allergic reaction to that hormone. Wink

Honestly, a really good shooter can produce the results they want with any decent camera, the actual camera and lens being way down the list of important factors.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I think I have an allergic reaction to that hormone. Wink

Honestly, a really good shooter can produce the results they want with any decent camera, the actual camera and lens being way down the list of important factors.

+1


PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 12:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Do your test anyway, I've read the replies to your post and I understand why you want to compare them. Of course the difference or lack of it may be down to your own perception, as others said, because you own a Leica. But...

...The proof is in the pudding.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
the test should still be interesting even with the huge differences in technology that have been pointed out, and for one simple reason; both technologies produce an image, both cameras are considered among the best of their type and era.
Obviously we shall view the results digitally, and if that favours the digital camera / process over the film camera / process / digital scan is a debatable point.
I want to see it. Straight unprocessed images, just the processing to get them on the screen.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Anyway, in the past three years, I have shot a lot of M9 and a lot of Zeiss Ikon (rangefinder) film.
I find the M9 sensor every bit as digital as any other digital sensor that I have used.
Or even perhaps more digital, since it's sharper than any other I have due to the lack of AA filter,
and sharper in my comparison book means "more digital".
The Kodachrome-like colours? Good marketing... I have used Kodachrome in my film life...


PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 4:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
A microfilm like Tech Pan or Copex can beat any digital sensor for sharpness, but you need a very high end scanner to extract all the resolution, or make a very big silver print to see it.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lloydy wrote:
the test should still be interesting even with the huge differences in technology that have been pointed out, and for one simple reason; both technologies produce an image, both cameras are considered among the best of their type and era.
Obviously we shall view the results digitally, and if that favours the digital camera / process over the film camera / process / digital scan is a debatable point.
I want to see it. Straight unprocessed images, just the processing to get them on the screen.


That is the problem as scan any shot from B\W film (and colour) and you turn it into pixels and depending on the scanner and esp what you are scanning.....scanner noise. And even if you use chemicals for your neg, the print is limited to the paper being able to cope with the full range of tones...depending on the subject.
It would seem to show film at its best you would have to use slide film.... B\W (not sure if it exists now) or colour, and project at home, and then you have to have a good quality screen and not a white bed sheet Wink


PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Another interesting thread, and no doubt when Matthew had finished his evaluation he'll be nearer to knowing which he prefers. But if he's a professional wedding or portrait photographer depending on selling his pictures for his income, maybe the real test is to ask clients which output they prefer. Would using one medium rather than the other give him a competitive edge? Or enable him to charge a premium price?

Sadly, I think such would not be the case. Those who purchase photos look at what's in the picture, not at the highly developed technology of the camera or the manipulative post-processing or darkroom skills of the photographer. As a friend of mine likes to say, "Close enough is good enough". If the colours are okay, the highlights aren't blown and the shadows aren't clogged, then its mostly the look on the people's faces that gets the 'oohs and ahhs' and the repeat orders.

Now, that's not to say Matthew's exercise is pointless. Not at all. Once he's satisfied which of his mediums-of-choice seems the best in his eyes, then he can concentrate without distraction on the artistic side of taking the pictures.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 11:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:


Sadly, I think such would not be the case. Those who purchase photos look at what's in the picture, not at the highly developed technology of the camera or the manipulative post-processing or darkroom skills of the photographer. As a friend of mine likes to say, "Close enough is good enough". If the colours are okay, the highlights aren't blown and the shadows aren't clogged, then its mostly the look on the people's faces that gets the 'oohs and ahhs' and the repeat orders.

Now, that's not to say Matthew's exercise is pointless. Not at all. Once he's satisfied which of his mediums-of-choice seems the best in his eyes, then he can concentrate without distraction on the artistic side of taking the pictures.

I thorougly agree. Otoh, if the pics are taken with the best available tech then stored with lossless and most space-efficient software available, it allows some future processing to take place with more advanced imaging software than is available now, revealing details that are not available cheaply enough to make it worthwhile at the present time.
I'm thinking of future re-orders in Ultra-HD, sort of thing.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm looking forward to seeing the results!

Will produce interesting results because of you, a good photographer with interesting themes when shooting.


There are a lot of comparing threads about comparing whatever.... with pretty boring themes.
So I want to see your's!
Klaus


PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:07 pm    Post subject: Re: Film vs. Digital Reply with quote
Farside wrote:
LucisPictor wrote:


It is true that the images of an M9 (or an M8!) seem to carry some special "timbre", but it's hard to say if that was part of the original design concept or if it is a result of the particular feeling that a Leica M conveys to its user.


It's analogous to the i-Gadget from Apple. There's a cunningly disguised smug-stimulator inside it, that pricks the finger of the users and injects a hormone, causing them to feel good and radiate an air of smugness Smile



Laughing Laughing Yes, I guess you're right! Wink


PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 11:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
Lloydy wrote:
the test should still be interesting even with the huge differences in technology that have been pointed out, and for one simple reason; both technologies produce an image, both cameras are considered among the best of their type and era.
Obviously we shall view the results digitally, and if that favours the digital camera / process over the film camera / process / digital scan is a debatable point.
I want to see it. Straight unprocessed images, just the processing to get them on the screen.


That is the problem as scan any shot from B\W film (and colour) and you turn it into pixels and depending on the scanner and esp what you are scanning.....scanner noise. And even if you use chemicals for your neg, the print is limited to the paper being able to cope with the full range of tones...depending on the subject.
It would seem to show film at its best you would have to use slide film.... B\W (not sure if it exists now) or colour, and project at home, and then you have to have a good quality screen and not a white bed sheet Wink


When I get chance to make the comparison I will share Leica M9 DNG files converted to B&W (but no other alterations) + 35mm film negative scans scanned using Epson V600 on normal scan mode without dust removal or sharpening applied.

The weather in London yesterday was not the best so although I did 2 model shoots I only used the Leica M9 as would have been a pain to keep changing lenses in the wet between the film body and M9. The Leica M9 still did a fine job. Here is one from the afternoon when it had dried up a little in Regent's Park, taken with an Industar 26M 52mm f2.8 (that I bought in Ukraine with a FED-2 body for under £10). Great little lens and very light vs. the expensive glass (such as Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 ASPHii)


Industar 26M on Leica M9 by MatthewOsbornePhotography_, on Flickr

Straight from SD card - B&W JPEG as don't currently have my laptop.

I will report back once have done the film vs. digital comparison


PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 11:46 am    Post subject: Thanks Reply with quote
exaklaus wrote:
I'm looking forward to seeing the results!

Will produce interesting results because of you, a good photographer with interesting themes when shooting.


There are a lot of comparing threads about comparing whatever.... with pretty boring themes.
So I want to see your's!
Klaus


Thank you Klaus. Yes I prefer beautiful girl photos to coloured pencil photos comparisons any day.

I'll do my best Smile


PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 11:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:
Another interesting thread, and no doubt when Matthew had finished his evaluation he'll be nearer to knowing which he prefers. But if he's a professional wedding or portrait photographer depending on selling his pictures for his income, maybe the real test is to ask clients which output they prefer. Would using one medium rather than the other give him a competitive edge? Or enable him to charge a premium price?

Sadly, I think such would not be the case. Those who purchase photos look at what's in the picture, not at the highly developed technology of the camera or the manipulative post-processing or darkroom skills of the photographer. As a friend of mine likes to say, "Close enough is good enough". If the colours are okay, the highlights aren't blown and the shadows aren't clogged, then its mostly the look on the people's faces that gets the 'oohs and ahhs' and the repeat orders.

Now, that's not to say Matthew's exercise is pointless. Not at all. Once he's satisfied which of his mediums-of-choice seems the best in his eyes, then he can concentrate without distraction on the artistic side of taking the pictures.


Great point. As you correctly say my clients cannot tell the difference between my film photos and digital photos. For some where the camera gives a certain look (Contax 645 with Zeiss Planar 80mm f2 T shot wide open) the customer will say ooh I like the look of that photo but they don't know why. That comment referred to some Kodak Portra film shots vs. digital colour. For B&W they can't seem to tell the difference and some clients are now asking if my recent Leica M9 photos are film... so yes for paying clients if the Leica M9 gives me that 'look' for my B&W photos that clients like then it is 100x easy to shoot digital (with close enough results to film) that to develop and scan a whole wedding's worth of B&W film negatives.

Currently I am shooting the Leica weddings with a additional roll of colour Kodak portra film in the Contax 645 or Mamiya RZ67 pro ii for a few wow shots for their portrait session. Partly for me and partly for them as I love the Portra skin tones! Smile


PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 9:18 pm    Post subject: No film shots yet to compare but Leica M9 is getting close! Reply with quote
Here is another shot from Leica fashion shoot yesterday in London using the Leica M9 + Voigtlander Classic Nokton 35mm f1.2 ASPH ii (at f1.2)

The fact that it is not quite focused has given it a more vintage look. No PP as no laptop at moment. Leica M9 B&W in camera JPEG.



Leica M9 Soft Focus by MatthewOsbornePhotography_, on Flickr

*Another Flickr contact posted a B&W film shot on the same Flickr thread as a comparison using Fuji Neopan 400.

Thoughts welcome..
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Film SLR / TLR Cameras
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2