Digital v. Leica M

Been bitten by the digital bug big time. So far I have played with

my Olympus E-10. Had a chance to work with the EOS 10D and the S2Pro

recently. Was pleasantly surprised by the the quality that these two

cameras provide with my Epson 2200.

 

I am turning to you my brothers and sisters of Leica-dom for some

insight before I make the plunge. The only SLR that I have is the E-

10; and have 2 M6TTL bodies, 1 M4-2 body, lenses that span 15 to 135

for the M bodies, add to that a Xpan with the 45 and 90. The Xpan

sees little action now. Going DSLR will give me a focal range of 25

to 450, with the 25 to 100 being my prime shooting range.

 

I love how small and light my M kits are. The speed of the lenses

are not much of an issue most of the time. I do have a Minolta Dual

Scan III that delivers good results. But the lure of a digital is

strong. The lack of processing is just one small part. My limited

play with digital RAW formats seems to indicate that good print is a

bit faster than scanning (and the small retouching that seems to be

needed when you don't have Digital Ice).

 

So any others that have felt the digital tug?

 

So I guess I turn to you all for some insight. If I do make the jump

to digital I will probably keep only one M body, and my prime

lenses; for BW use. The sale of my Xpan Kit, E-10, and some of the M

gear will finance the digital move I hope.

I've come the other way, from a D30 (since upgraded to a 10D) to a M6TTL. It's not an either-or proposition, although you will probably find you shoot mostly black and white film after going digital.

I've got a Nikon Coolpix 5000 (5MP)and a Canon D60, had both a Fuji S1 and a Canon D30 previously. I don't like waiting for them to power up, I don't like having to keep a 100-page manual at my side constantly to guide me through what menu I've got to scroll through to change what function, I don't like 300+ images all on one crashable CF card, I don't like carrying battery packs and chargers and cords around, I don't like that one little glitch in all the firmware/software/underware/whatever will screw up all my shooting, and most of all I don't like that after I shoot I've got to look forward to hours and hours of tedium in front of my computer to get those images to look halfway like real photographs. After much use of digital cameras I can honestly say, I'll use them to dutifully record family events and such for people who want me to drop the images on their hard drive (saves me the cost of film and processing), but when shooting film becomes impractical I'll give up my personal photography.

I have used E-10 for 3 years now. In the middle of the digital experience I began to buy rangefinders - so it works the other way, too ;))

<p>

(A) the biggest advantage of the digital is the ability to immediately preview what you've done. This makes one a better photographer. The one-year progress with that immediate feedback is probably equivalent to 3 years of the traditional shooting. It's also helpful that one can experiment freely, at any time, with any idea - and simply erase if it did not work.<br>

(b) The biggest disadvantage of the digital is its small matrix, so ALL and ANY of your shots are sharp through. Forget about selective focus and beautiful boke.

<br>

© The biggest advantage of the rangefinder/film is the way it draws the image. Overlighted whites are beautiful - on the digital they are jaggy and undescribably ugly.

Selective focus is always possible - even on a sunny day distant objects will be slightly hazy/unsharp, indicating volume. The digital image is flat.<br>

(d) Another important and it seems neglected factor is the frame format. The 35mm prolonged frame makes perception completely different from the heavy rectangle of the format/ratio on which all digital seemed to standardize.<br>

(e) and finally, with a rangefinder I do not part, and it is with me everywhere, at all times - while it's not possible to lag the $??!!%(( thousand dollar brick, which is also useless in the evening.

<p>

So, when you know what you are doing, the rangefinder does not seem that bad, although I doubt I will ever part with the versatility of a digital camera.

I sold my leica and bought an olympus 5050. Great little camera, but can not replace the pleasure of shooting with the leica. Also, being able to edit on the computer is great, but I am limited on time. I love it as a point and shoot. I never use my Yashica T4 anymore, but just can not replace the leica.

Digital is increadible. Certain cameras with the right lenses will

give you Bokeh and all the other thrills. No need to get all

wrapped up in bells and whistles if you don't want to. And, like

film, if you expose correctly, then learn a few simple PhotoShop

actions, you don't have to set in front of a computer for hours if

you don't want to. No one here is more digital than I, and without

reservation I advise you to...

 

Keep your Leica.<div></div>

Yeah, <br>

shoot in Macro and claim you discovered boke.

Same in regular mode: focus at the minimal distance and everything else will go blurred.

<br>

However, get out into the street and start photographing, and all your images are flat as paper.

<p>

Your example is schoolboy's cheating, get more inventive next time

Shooting with a Leica M and a digital SLR are two different experiences. It would be

nice to have both setups if you can swing it.

I've only shot with a Digital SLR a few times. To my mind they are as far removed from

the simplicity of the M as possible.

Nikon D100. No waiting, easy interface, manual not needed. I

like the 35/2 AF Nikkor on it. Do youself a favor and forego the

zooms. The primes make the camera reasonably sized and give

you some lens speed to work with. I's suggest a 20mm and a

35mm lens set to start with. Then maybe add something like a

60mm macro.

<img

src="/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1247155&size=md"

height=558 width=750 hspace=10>

<p align="center">S2 Pro, Nikkor 80-200/2.8</p>

<br>

<p>Ahem. To claim digital doesnt have bokeh sounds a bit weird to me. Yes, it messes highlights, and long exposures are normally a dud. It's just another media. Is it better than film? No. Is it different? Yes. Instant gratification? Definitely. Street photography? Not the best choice. Would you like it? That's always subjective [i own both film cameras (35 to LF) and a DSLR].

I'm not digital yet (doesn't make financial sense for the way I

shoot at present), but I have several friends who have been

shooting primarily digital for a couple of years now. They love

what digital can do. They're also at the point where they want to

pull out a film body now and then to shoot some more film

because digital just isn't the same.

 

(Also, they have absolutely no trouble getting selective focus and

blurred backgrounds with cameras such as the S1 and D30,

even when subjects are well beyond macro range.)

Hi Michael,

 

Your E10 is not representative of the state of digital right now.

 

Digital has no bokeh? have u never used a REAL digital SLR? You don't know what u're missing out on.

 

forget the E10 - it's still that small noisy sensor every other digital Point and Shoot uses........

 

The problem with such discussions is that everytime someone will come along and recount their experiences with their consumer digital point and shoots, and conclude, in their own world, that digital isn't there yet.

I have a Canon 1D and a 10D, both great DSLRs. But I've found myself going out with my old Yashica 6x6 TLR on Sunday mornings instead of those technical marvels and I'm seriously considering selling the 10D and getting a M6 plus 35 or 50mm.

 

Digital is great, but it also adds a bunch of steps you have to consider, esp. since it only comes packaged in sophisticated SLRs or menu-driven digicams. If you buy a DSLR, by all means keep one M6 until you discover that you never, ever use it anymore.

<div></div>

Chip, I am in the process of liquidating another hobby toys for a 10D which I consider to be a good camera. Things that are nice, it has the phd (push HERE dummy modes) up to full manual. It takes my canon lenses. The camera assuming it's focus is correct you must test it, should give reasonable bokeh with good L lenses (note the L). My current lens choice is for wide angle has one reasonable lens the new 17 to 40 F4 zoom, will get a 50 F1.4, and 70 to 200 F4 L, along with a 2X extender. The other choice is to go with all primes (can be very expensive).

 

Things I will NOT like, shutter lag compare to an M (let's not talk about it), viewfinder compared to my M4-P or Hexar RF (again let's not talk about it), size (it's a brick, ok a small brick) try picking up a canon 1Ds (it's a cinder block), and focusing on that tiny screen when the auto focus refuses to operate.

 

You can replace the Xpan for landscape shots by stiching many pictures together or buy a cheap rebel body for the wide angle landscape shots and do film.

 

I am planning on keeping my M4-P and Hexar RF, along with all my lenses. I am still hoping on a digital M.

 

Will be pulling the trigger on this stuff within the next 2 weeks. I also had a thread on this in the beginning of the week. FYI, I briefly looked at Contax and Nikon, no comparison to Canon.

 

May the force be with you in your decision.

Chip,

 

PLEASE sell me your M4-2, so my M4-P won't feel lonely. Wouldn't mind a VC 21mm either; if you've got one to spare, feel free to drop me a note...

 

I do appreciate your recent note re: my Balda. It was much appreciated.

 

I'm going to assume that the cost of high-end digital equipment isn't an impediment for you. I'm an amateur, so cost is still something of an issue. So far, film meets my needs quite well.

 

Have the newer digital cameras solved the problem of shutter lag? How about recycle time? My Leica, and most of my manual film cameras, have no perceptible lag, and I'm used to the wind-on cycle. For a supposedly simple shoot, say a 4-year old's birthday party, this might be a problem. Let's face it, it might as well be sports photography, given the amount of action you'll have to deal with. Kids on Ritalin are an exception, of course. I love those kids, but they do move fast.

 

Do you mind the bother and weight of spare Ni-Cad batteries, CF cards, a card reader, power and data cords, power supplies, maybe a laptop for image downloading, etc.? Digital does have its technical baggage. I like to keep it simple. The battery in my Luna-Pro meter isn't likely to die during a shoot. And all of the stuff I expect to need fits into a fairly small bag. (Eagle Creek Excursion, if it matters). And I've been known to shoot based on sunny-f/16, which is good enough with print film if the meter dies.

 

Of course, opinions are worth what you paid for them, including my own.

 

Warmest regards,

David

I too have been bitten by the digital bug. I won't get into the various pluses and minuses. Do what you need to do, but I will say this... Keep the Leicas !!! If you sell them off there WILL come a time that you will be sorry you sold them. I speak from personal experience. I paid $269.00 Cdn for my first Leica. (an M3 w/DR Sum in 1969), by the time I sold out I had a kit very simmilar to yours. I wish I still did.

Buy the digital, just save a little longer first.

 

Jim Clay

Alberta, Canada

I have not been thus bitten. <br><br> In the words of the late, great Oskar Barnack: <b>Digital, schmigital</b> <br><br> ;-)

Chip,

 

Make the move, but also keep some of your m gear. I've shot film for the most part for work because I was worried about the quality - anyone who has used a D2000 or older nikon digitals knows how horrible the quality is. I bought a Canon D1 a few months ago because I had to pass on great assignments because I couldn't make deadlines with film.

 

Digital is wonderful. As was mentioned above you can immediatly preview your pictures - and this helps to make you a better photograper as long as you don't spend all of your time looking at the camera and missing the pictures! The quality of the new cameras are great and you can have total control of the printing process.

 

My advice is to keep two leica bodies and a few lenses and sell the rest to buy a canon eos 10d and a few fast zooms. You'll have the best of both worlds.

 

john

Digital was great, and the quality from the 10D was fantastic, but it's not a rangefinder- period. Back with the M and couldn't be happier. Instant feedback only complicates things in the field for street and documentary photography.

I went to this guy yesterday who was selling his M gear to finance a Canon 1Ds(?) and lenses. He was dissapointed Leica made the MP, he does not think Leica would ever make a digital M body, so he totally switched. It is kinda weird thinking about it, shouldnt Leica look ahead instead of looking at the M3? Im quite confident myself that a digital M will come sooner or later, probably Leica is just waiting till its commercially interesting to bring one out.

 

Ive bought his 90 'thin' TE though, allthough i felt a little guilty doing so.....

Dear Michael, RE: "...schoolboy's cheating"

 

Despite your slightly inflamatory tone, I'll cheerfully respond.

 

Using your semi-consumer digital with a fixed zoom isn't the

whole digital experience. In many multi-lens DSLRs the digital

sensor merely replaces film. It is the lens and sensor size

combination that determines things like Bokeh.

 

Digital SLRs with larger sensors will visually act pretty much the

same as their film counterparts given that the same lens is

used.

 

Most people don't yet understand how to initially set up their

digital cameras to increase it's dynamic range and avoid blown

whites, nor do most folks spend the same amount of time they

did with the characteristics of film, to learn about using RAW files

and their processing programs...all of which have their roots in

the wet darkroom. While the terminology may differ, the principle

is the same.

 

To others...who says you HAVE to use things like instant feed

back in every shooting situation? Every digital camera available

has a button to turn off the display. Just use it, and the

experience becomes the same as with a film camera. And

please don't confuse the power-up and shutter lag of a P&S with

that of some current DSLRs. Just like with film cameras there is

a wide spectrum of performance levels.

 

Chip, keep your Leicas and wait. I take it that unlike me you aren't

under a commercial pressure to go digital. It'll cost $10,000+ to

even come close to what your little Ms can produce as far as

"artistic" quality is concerned. Perfect your scanning technique,

and learn PhotoShop tricks along the way...all of which you can

apply to the 16 meg, full frame DSLR that will be available for

under $1,000. with-in 5 years...maybe sooner. If you want to

dabble in digital try the Canon S-50...a remarkable little P&S for

$500. At 5 meg, with controls that allow you to set for available

light, it's more fun than a barrel of monkeys...without busting the

bank. You may find like others that you dislike digital. Then it'll

really cost you both in crappy resale of the digital and then to

replace the wonderful M system you already have.<div></div>

Oh, and I do occasionally take street shots with a digital, and

don't particularily find them "flat as paper". I just prefer the size

and handling of a M as being the more appropriate tool.<div></div>

Marc,last pic is outstanding.

Your picture is in first made by two major elements. YOU and your lens. The body inbetween is just to register light. You can make great shots with digital bodies and with analogue ones. Digital bodies have some issues that differentiate them from analogue ones. These you should study very well before you think to go digital:

 

+Individual handeling and setting (ASA) per shot rather than per 36

 

+Composition verification (but don't think to high of a 1.2" screen)

 

+quicker download into computer (if you use one), but I process my own C-41 and have my film ready 30min after I start processing, 1hr later all are evaluated and if successfull enough scanned in the computer. It's quick enough for me.

 

+/-small sensor->larger DOF (in macro and some studio work it can actually be an advantage)

 

-Power dependancy (problem with low temps, extra batteries, etc)

 

-Higher Sensitivity for environment (moist, dirt, etc)

 

-Forced to fully digital traject, you need a computer and possibillity for digital prints (can be a shop). With analogue you have a choise.

 

-Memory requirements (if you want top-quality images you don't use compression)

 

-Price/prestation/quality relation

 

-Smaller printable size (But how much 20x30" do you print??)

 

-Bad B&W performance for prints

 

-For home-made digital prints, endurbale prints (70-100years) are expensive, consumer ink/paper combintions can sometimes last downto 6months before fading occurs.

 

 

The MAIN advantage of digital is however not those very expensive bodies but the computer with PS or Gimp.

 

Note that with a 10D you buy a low-end digital body, while for the same amount you can buy a top-end analogue reflex. In 5 years your 10D will be worth nothing.