Leica users & collectors: are we REALLY going to buy the DM8?

Dear Leica pals and photo.net community fellows, while having my late afternoon coffee I am browsing
through the various photo.net Leica forum posts and I am noticing that many Leica users seem to be
anxiously waiting for the release on the market of this highly anticipated new Leica Digital M, or M8, or
whatever is going to be called.
What's sure, according to the figures cited so far, is that's going to be another expensive toy, in perfect
Leica fashion. And that's fine, if we can afford it and if we really wish so.
But all this hype makes me wonder...I have first bought a Leica not long ago, less than three years now,
and before that I had never really been fascinated so much by an object the way I felt with a Leica (except
perhaps by my records, my hi-fi equipment, and my first motorbike...).
I never had a proper camera before, only toys, including some digital ones, and for me photography was
something nice to do but never a great deal.
The Leica changed my way of doing and looking at photography.
When I handle my MP (or any M cameras for that matter...) I really feel I am "taking" a photograph.
Finally, I spot a subject, I concentrate on it, I focus it, I shoot, I really enjoy the act...
I actually enjoy the Leica M so much that I now use my little Digital Camera only for "commercial" shots
(eBay listings etc). I thought many Leica users felt the same way. Of course I am not a pro, and I don't
know what a pro would think of the new Leica DM, but I would like to know...
Anyway, my question again: are we really going to replace our beloved M film cameras with the new Leica
Digital M when it finally comes out ?
Were you not in love with your M film cameras and saying that film gives you more pleasure and probably
more quality than when shooting in digital?
Are we really going to buy probably the very first Leica M that will depreciate in value within a short period
of time (that should be certain, look at the digital cameras world and what price those cameras fetch after
just a couple of years, but I'd also like to hear your comments on the matter...).
So, if you are going to buy the new Digital M, then why?

 

Why would using a digital M be any different that the experience you just described? You didn't mention enjoying processing film and scanning, so how will the digital process interfere with your joy of "'taking' a photograph?"

Personally, i'm not interested in the M8d (or whatever) in its first generation. It seems contrary to the reasons i like Leica. I like Leica because i like b+w film. If/when i need the immediacy of digital, i use a 5D. I love the 5D, but for different reasons. I don't think i need to mix the two purposes at this point. Aside from that, i won't be buying any more cameras 'featuring' a crop-factor. I'm just not interested in buying more lenses to compensate for it, and i enjoy the shallow DOF effects of a 24x36 or larger format. As well, the Leica will certainly be expensive. While my M7 wasn't 'cheap,' i already have my digital bases covered and can't justify spending 4k on a redundant system.

As for (image) "quality," i have always, consistently achieved better 'quality' with digital, as far as sharpness and color accuracy are concerned. But, i still prefer film (when i get it right). To me, digital is a 'recording.' Film is a 'rendering,' closer to a painting. Digital is overly 'real,' until it's manipulated, and i'm still paranoid that my manipulations don't appear to be 'genuine' enough. I haven't reached the stage where i can simply appreciate digital for its own aesthetic merits. You'll have to weigh those factors for yourself and determine what "quality" means.

I wish i felt the same "love" you experience with your "beloved" cameras. I do seem to 'love' cameras, but somehow it doesn't seem like the same kind of 'passion' you (and others) seem to describe....

 

"What's sure, according to the figures cited so far, is that's going to be another expensive
toy, in perfect Leica fashion." <P><P>

<P>A 10 megapixel sensor without an AA filter and with great lenses in front of it is not
the recipe for a toy. If you have seen the photos out of the DMR you will understand that
they are supremely capable. I will not say it is better than film or worse, but I will say that
they can do things that film cannot, just like film can do things that digital cannot. The M8
will be welcome by many people because it will bring professional quality digital into a
much smaller and lighter package. If you have handled the 1DsMk II or the DMR, you will
understand why this is an issue. The M8 will have similar imaging characteristics, but in
the size of an M camera. After lugging the DMR and a bunch of lenses around Iceland for a
few weeks, I can tell you that an M8 would have been a welcome change. And as you say,
the shooting experience of using a rangefinder is quite nice, and it will be carried over into
the M8. But I think you are mistaken if you think everyone interested in the M8 is
interested in it to "replace" their other M cameras. If I were to buy one, it would not be to
replace the M cameras, but to add to their capabilities.

 

Should I give up all the film bodies, both M and R, render the lenses impotent for their intended purpose, just to spend some obscene abount of money on a digi cam that does not even give me neg I can take into my darkroom. Then they will obsolete it in a few years because they will find a way to overcome the crop and vignetting problems and then you first digi cam will be worthless.

PS is nice, but I can scan any neg I have up to 8x10 and make a digi file.

I am sure photojournalists will use them if they are not already commited to DSLRs as it gets them out of the darkroom and pics can be readied for press in a few sec, even sent bounced off a satellite from another continent. They need it and have the budgets to chase the digi comet.

It is not even in the realm of possibility to buy one and dump what I have to get into the planned obsolesence computer/printer/digi cam game.

Film may be dead, but I`m freezing a 20 year supply and after that I will not care.

My $200 Cannon P&S does a great job if I need a quick pic for the net or to e-mail someone. If you go to Canon`s site, The $8000 full frame model looks no better on a computer screen than the $200 one.
If I had the site address with me, I would share it so you could look for yourself.

 

"Leica users & collectors: are we REALLY going to buy the DM8?"

Some of us are and some of us aren't.

"So, if you are going to buy the new Digital M, then why?"

Because I want one and I can afford it.

Dealing with [Thinly disguised] digital vs film trolls is like clamping off a bleeder. Perfunctory, once you find it.

 

Well the DMR is out already and I still have my R4s mod.P.

 

Eric, That wall could be used to do resolution/frame line/crop factor/distortion tests for the upcoming, what is that now, "DM8"?!

 

...of course a bacteremia could set in and then all hell can break loose.

 

I don't intend to "collect" ANY digital cameras! The day I ordered my MP, the store salesman was showing a Canon D10 to a potential buyer, at $1100 with no lens. Since that day, Canon has issued the D20 and D30. The MP is still being sold as it was the day I bought it. Thus, I tend to consider digital gear to be planned obsolescence "throw away" gear, regardless of price, and certainly not collectible. I also prefer using film and though I do own digital cameras for snapshots, I spend as little as possible for them.

 

Digital is to photography as photocopies are to painting.

FILM RULES - keep your film cameras and keep buying B&W film!

 

Absolutely no interest in the M8, but I'm hoping for a nice cheap 0.85 mag M7 that someone wants to dump for an M8. I'm all set with my digital - I have a great little Sony with a "Zeiss" lens ;-) that makes cracking pics

 

haha,

film is to cameras what gasoline is to automobiles.

 

This camera might be worthwhile for photojournalists and other photographers who want
a small high quality digital camera. But it's not for me. I have my own color darkroom, and
won't give it up unless I have too.

While many people have raved each advance of digital cameras, film and paper have
quietly been improving too (though choice is becoming more limited, quality has made a
great leap in color negative films like Kodak UC 100 and UC400, also Fuji Pro 160S and
Pro 160C).

If I were a PJ shooting on deadlines I would probably get one, and then replace it with the
next full frame digi-M, etc. If I were a skilled digital printer I'd think about it, but I'm not.
I'm a skilled RA4 printer, so any digital M makes no sense for me.

 

Ben . , aug 02, 2006; 01:34 p.m.
"Digital is to photography as photocopies are to painting.

FILM RULES - keep your film cameras and keep buying B&W film!"

LOL.

Eric got it spot on.

 

Derek, I agree with you even if I don't print my own negatives and nowadays most of the
times I only scan them: but definitively digital is a 'recording.' Film is a 'rendering,' closer to a
painting...
And Vinay, this was no way was meant to be another digital vs film troll, absolutely.
I just wanted to know why so many of us are so tempted in getting a digital camera. And
Stuart reply was already very satisfactory...
May be I am just afraid that my collection of toys will become obsolete too and quickly
depreciate in value...?

 

Stuart and Derek, thanks for your comments, they are spot on.
Off I go to my dinner, friends around, time for some B&W portraits with my APO 75.........
Eric, I love your emoticon...how can I get one to use?

 

Well, i love shooting with my Leica, like you say, "'taking' a photograph... enjoy[ing] the act". But I also really really prefer the digital workflow. So a camera that gives me both sounds pretty good to me.

So, yes, I'll seriously consider the M8.

Obsolesence and decline in value are both non-issues (for me), since I oddly enough buy cameras to use, not re-sell.

j

 

You are right Trevor, Eric is spot on. I just wanted to point that out but also highlight the digital process eliminates the distiction between the craft and the product. It also suffers from an inherent lack of credibility. What I mean is that photographers who use digital workflow will always need to express what type and extent of digital manipulation has taken place. The traditional printer need never do this - the finished product is inherently reliable.

By the way, I just bought a Leica CM at least partially based upon your feedback on the camera and I really like it. Thanks. Got rid of my Leica rangefinders and kept the Hasselblad and Rolleicord for medium format work in beautiful B&W film and FB paper. The Leica CM is fantastic except for the lack of filter or hood mounting capabilities (I know about the S.K. Grimes doo-hickey).

 

no desire for m8 whatsoever, but will be getting another m4p and m6 classic.....

 

I just wanted to point that out but also highlight the digital process eliminates the distiction between the craft and the product. It also suffers from an inherent lack of credibility. What I mean is that photographers who use digital workflow will always need to express what type and extent of digital manipulation has taken place. The traditional printer need never do this - the finished product is inherently reliable.
Nonsense on all counts... Amazing someone really believes that.

 

"The traditional printer need never do this - the finished product is inherently reliable."

Ben, you said a lot of slightly odd things in your posting but I'll restrict myself to the
above.

'Inherently reliable'? This really is an old canard that I thought we'd moved on from years
ago.

Was there anything remotely reliable about, for example, Soviet era re-touching of
photographs when generals who fell out of favour were removed from May Day parade
pictures?

Do you think that Hollywood studio photos of movie stars were inherently reliable?

If you don't like digital that's absolutely fine but I don't think there's any need to make
such spurious claims as to why you don't.

BTW, I am inherently unreliable in film and digital.

 

How do all those who have poked their eyes out so they don't have to look at anything that
has to do with technology continue to hit all of the right keys on their keyboards after they've
stumbled out of their darkrooms?

 

Comrad Trotsky in...<p>

<img src="http://members.shaw.ca/jamie_jenkins/7.jpg"><p><p>

Comrad Trotsky out...<p>

<img src="http://members.shaw.ca/jamie_jenkins/8.jpg"><p>

Comrad Yezhov here today...<p>

<img src="http://members.shaw.ca/jamie_jenkins/1.jpg"><p>

Comrad Yezhov gone tomorrow...<p>



<img src="http://members.shaw.ca/jamie_jenkins/2.jpg"><p>

 

Due to the ever increasing price of gasoline, hookers, and whiskey I may be forced to sell my Leica equipment and take up sketching like old Henri Bersson.

 

Lot of noise in those Soviet pictures so it must be a plate glass digital that was used and it
was definitely not full frame.

 

What about playboy bunnies, the centerfold. Now that's shot on 8x10 film, so it *must* be reliable!

 

I have no plans to buy an M8. While there is still considerable refinement left to be done in digital cameras, I am not paying the price. Once they have reached a shakedown and all sensors and software are essentially equivalent then I may be more interested. This will probably take 5 - 10 years I reckon. I am not a professional - if I turn professional then naturally I would have to buy a digital kit, but my whole photographic life has been with film and I am used and like it. In fact, personally, I really like my current film/scanning/digital printing hybrid system, in many ways this represents for me the best of both worlds.

 

The Soviet era manipulations are very often pretty poor and obvious and they often only really got away with it (assuming they did really of course) because these images were for print publications only (originals were strictly guarded) and of inherently low quality. Of course it is entirely possible to retounch prints and negatives to exacting standards, but it is nevertheless quite difficult to be entirely convincing, whereas with Photoshop the cloning or retouching process is very easy indeed. So I do think there is a distinction between the digital and the traditional approach which, although not watertight, contains a good deal of truth. My point is that Ben may not be completely right, but there is still a big grain of truth in his argument.

 

I just wanted to point that out but also highlight the digital process eliminates the distiction between the craft and the product. It also suffers from an inherent lack of credibility. What I mean is that photographers who use digital workflow will always need to express what type and extent of digital manipulation has taken place.
IF this is true then film rules, forever.
But it is false

 

Just to Pile on......

That is funny. I suppose if you are a traditional printer who doesn't know how to correct
for bad exposure, Crop, Dodge, Burn, Bleach, retouch, Sandwich Negs, print composites,
Tilt the easle to change perspective (I'm sure I am missing several hundred others)

<<I just wanted to point that out but also highlight the digital process eliminates the
distiction between the craft and the product. It also suffers from an inherent lack of
credibility. What I mean is that photographers who use digital workflow will always need to
express what type and extent of digital manipulation has taken place.>>

 

" It also suffers from an inherent lack of credibility. What I mean is that photographers who use digital workflow will always need to express what type and extent of digital manipulation has taken place."

Only if the people looking at the photos are asking such questions.

If they ARE asking about the extent of digital manipulation used, then they are NOT looking at photos.

 

By "inherently reliable" I did not mean to suggest no manipulation, including the examples above. Even the examples above are inherently reliable because the manipulation is readily apparent.

The difference is hand craft versus machine craft. I know some will argue that there is hand craft or skill in digital manipulation (which is certainly true), but I believe a lower value is assigned to it. For example, given the choice of purchasing a high-qualtiy FB print or a high-quality inkjet print that are visually and otherwise identical (save for perhaps a tactile quality), which would you rather own? Most if not all of us will naturally gravitate to the FB print. Don't deny it.

 

Trevor, one can be "looking" at the photos and still wonder or question about the method used to achieve it. With digital, there is always, always, always the question about whether the photograph is the result of the photographer's skill or tenacity, or a manipulation. The possibilities for seamless, imperceptable manipulation are endless. With traditional, save for few exceptions like those above, the question is simply not natural.

 

"It also suffers from an inherent lack of credibility. What I mean is that photographers who
use digital workflow will always need to express what type and extent of digital
manipulation has taken place."

A little more true than is obvious. Remember the LA Times reporter who was fired for
Photoshopping an Iraq war photo to make it better? He was only caught because he did
some dumb things -- the art of manipulation hadn't been thought through enough. But it
has been now...

In the past, it was not possible to do this kind of on-the-fly front-line change, when
nobody knew but the photographer. Now it is. In my high school year book, many, many,
many years ago, we had a photo of a football end about to catch a pass. The shot was at
night, with a black sky, the ball illuminated by lights. The problem was, that even though
the ball was caught, in the photo it was too far away from the end's hands to make a good
shot. No problem. Cut 'n paste, move the football, reshoot and print. Looked fairly decent,
and now the ball was right off the end's fingertips. But it took quite a bit of work, paint,
etc., and even then, if you looked at if for a while, it was kinda funky (the ball was the
wrong size, for one thing.) Moving the ball today could be done before you left the football
field, and it would be essentially undetectable...So there's something to this point of view.
Maybe not too much, though.

JC

 

Then I would argue that you are not looking at the photo.

If you are looking at the material and the method and the meduim, then the message will escape you.

Before digital came along I expect a few closed minds only wanted to know if the photographer used a Leica or a Nikon or a Rollei or large format. Nothing else mattered.

To some others back then the very idea of an exhibition of colour photographs in a prestigious museum was horrifying. Unable to see past material and method and medium so the message (and the meaning) escapes such people.

 

I have found that the main problem with digital is dynamic range. BW film (when scanned
especially, since paper has less range than a scanner in my experience) has around 10-12
stops, depending on film, developer, etc., while digital is 5-6 six stops. Color reversal film
has less than BW, but more than digital. This sort of determines my choice of capture
medium. Digital seems to have less noise, but has a linear response to brightness vs. the
curve (i.e. toe and shoulder) of film.

 

Alright, another example. Think about a photographer like Keith Carter. If he was shooting digitally, then the whole quality of his work is called to question. It is not necessarily the work of a talented photographer or printer, but perhaps the work of a snot-nosed computer jockey.

 

"Michael Waldron , aug 02, 2006; 07:00 p.m.
I have found that the main problem with digital is dynamic range. BW film (when scanned especially, since paper has less range than a scanner in my experience) has around 10-12 stops, depending on film, developer, etc., while digital is 5-6 six stops. "

Michael,

Care to cite a source for these dynamic range figures?

 

"It is not necessarily the work of a talented photographer or printer, but perhaps the work of a snot-nosed computer jockey."

Ben,

Thank you for posting this. It gives us a much better understanding of your fears. It is actually quite common fear. Most people seem to be afraid to acknowledge this.

 

"....perhaps the work of a snot-nosed computer jockey."

Well at least that is out in the open now. I actually thought Ben had some rationale behind his objections to digital at one point.

 

If he was shooting digitally, then the whole quality of his work is called to question.
Why? Unless it's his equipment and process that ultimately moves you. Rather than his vision.

 

I'd really like a digital olympus pen half frame.

 

i'm looking forward to just giving a mental command to my sunglasses to take a pic so i can be a snot-nosed computer jockey when i get home.

 

Mm ght yuo foty yiklm neeb !! Beb yoi in a cmplhgt arzthyoip !!!

(Sorry my keyboard was full of snot)

 

COLOR film? When did they start making that? Is it available in standard cassettes that will fit in my Leicas? AMAZING! Next thing you know they'll be making cameras that don't even need film! Damn!

 

"When I handle my MP (or any M cameras for that matter...) I really feel I am "taking" a photograph. Finally, I spot a subject, I concentrate on it, I focus it, I shoot, I really enjoy the act..."

Luigi, I enjoy every one of these aspects of Leica rangefinders. I see no reason why the M8 digital rangefinder should change these feelings one bit. Look through the VF, swing the lens to bring the two images together, 'click!' What changes?

"Are we really going to replace our beloved M film cameras with the new Leica Digital M?"

Well, in my case a Sony R1 has ALREADY replaced my film Leicas - now I just want to replace the Sony with a beloved digital M and get that feeling back (plus some lenses that will actually shoot at f/2 and f/1.4).

"Film gives you more pleasure..."

Not me. I shoot pictures with a camera...what's inside it is immaterial until after the fact. And even then - I generally find scratches, dust, fuzzy corners and grain less than pleasant.

"...and probably more quality than when shooting in digital?"

Sorry, my Sony R1 digicam delivers better quality (when the lens is behaving) than scans from any film in my Leica M's.

The biggest favor I can possibly do for my Leica M lenses is give them a 10 Mpixel sensor in place of jelly-coated plastic scanned through a Nikon lens - in which case they will far outperform the Sony/Zeiss zoom.

"Are we really going to buy probably the very first Leica M that will depreciate in value within a short period of time?"

Shouldn't this be posted on PublicAccountants.net instead of Photo.net? Cameras are tools - I buy them based on how well they allow me to take pictures.

So, if you are going to buy the new Digital M, then why?

To get everything I get from a film Leica (size, weight, lenses, viewfinder, rangefinder) with a better imaging technology inside.

 

No interest whatsoever, obsolescence will come soooo fast.....

 

"i'm looking forward to just giving a mental command to my sunglasses to take a pic..."

Sunglasses? Hell with that. When I go in for lazik surgery, I'm having a digital implant
installed. ;-)

 

This "its all about the image" attitude is BS. That's like saying fake plastic shutters on a house are just as good as the real thing because they look the same.

So all you "all about the image" folks better start calling yourselves software manipulators, digital artists, computer geeks, IT personnel, whatever. Just stop using the term photographer for your evil digital hackery.

Digital-Schmigital - FILM RULES!!!!!

 

Just curious: when you're posting to this forum, do you write it out longhand and then
bring it to a computer jockey to upload? No, you're typing it at your computer. When you
make a mistake, do you whip out the Wite-Out (tm)? No, you probably use the delete/
backspace key. When you want to rearrange a paragraph, do you use scissors and tape?
No, you probably ctrl-x, ctrl-v or drag and drop.

So then does this computer assisted manipulation of your words and thoughts somehow
make your expression less authentic or less reliable? I wouldn't think so. If anything it has
allowed you the refine your words into a more accurate representation of what you want to
say, your written expression.

Why shouldn't this apply to visual expression as well?

BTW, I also don't think this is a digital vs film issue. Those who choose a computer as their
post-processing tool are probably just as likely to play with their images whether the
original capture was film or digital. I use both, and I'll make changes or not make changes
as appropriate for the job. It's just another tool in a photographer's toolbox.

j

 

Jonas,

Typing text into a computer does not portend to be anything other than what it is. Your analogy makes no sense with respect to photography.

 

"Your analogy makes no sense with respect to photography."

and yours does?

"That's like saying fake plastic shutters on a house are just as good as the real thing because they look the same."

 

Stated a different way:

My writer friend used to write everything longhand. Now he uses a word-processor, and
even spell checks. Does that make his writing less valid? No it doesn't.

I used to burn-n-dodge in a darkroom. Now I use a mouse. Does that diminish my
photographic skills? I don't think so. (but you might, I guess).

I used to record music to an analog reel-to-reel. Now I record to a PC with unlimited
digital tracks and built-in EQ and effects which allows me to cut and paste audio and
quantize drum tracks... "audio photoshop" as it were. Have I somehow become less of a
musician? I don't think so... I just have more options.

Of course, as I type that last part I realize that there's a similar argument in the music
world about soulful,real performance vs soulless, over-perfected recordings... but that's
where I'm still of the mind that tools are all just there to help you achieve whatever end-
result you desire, whether an image (if you don't want me to call it a "photograph") or
music or prose or poetry or tonight's dinner. The art is in knowing when to use them, and
more importantly when not to.

The jazz is in the space between the notes....

j

 

That's like saying fake plastic shutters on a house are just as good as the real thing because they look the same. Perhaps, if we were only LOOKING at the shutters then your analogy might begin to make slight sense. A photograph will get framed and hanged on a wall. From then on you are just going to LOOK at it and it will be all about the picture. You won't take it out of the frame once a month to sniff the fibers.

 

So ah Ben, do you judge a movie by how it is presented to you? Meaning, is the movie worse at your mum's house on a 27" crt with a single speaker in the cabnet verses at my place with a 42" hd plasma with 6.1 sound?

I agree with Trevor, you're not looking at the photo, you're looking at/for textures of fibre paper instead.

 

Jonas, that's great...

"The jazz is in the space between the notes..."

 

Man, you guys are thick. Writing is not a fair analogy because it is not a visual form or communication. Some motion pictures a created for big screen so there is a difference in watching a movie on a small television. But, I agree that if medium has no importance, then digital versus traditional makes no difference.

An underlying presumption that I am making, though, is that medium does matter in photography, at least for some forms (it does not for photojournalism for immediate publication, for example). But it certainly does matter for B&W collectors, so in the context of collecting the product of photojournalism, medium probably does ultimately matter (the collector will generally value a traditional print over an inkjet print). If you are just concerned about the image, then medium does not matter. But because the image must be captured in some medium for presentation, them medium generally does matter.

It is the same distinction between an oil painting and a giclee that are independently created but otherwise identical, i.e., the giclee is not reproduction of the painting. They look the same but the oil painting has a quality that is lacking in the giclee. Hence, my previous inquiry about what you would rather own, all things otherwise being equal, a FB print or an inkjet print? If your answer is the inkjet print, then you are a fool and/or a liar. If your answer is that it does not matter, then you are abstracting the image from its physical form and you are not answering the question.

Bottom line, and not because of anything I have said above, the digital M will not be successful because it is too litle, too late, and too costly, naysayers here (who are mostly weenie internet "experts") will lambast it for all sorts of insignificant things, but I may find a good deal on a used M film body.

FILM RULES!!!!

 

Ben you are not doing yourself or the cause of film or film cameras or traditional photography any favours by being offensive and insulting towards people who are debating your arguments.

Using terms like "Snot nosed computer jockeys" and "weenie internet "experts" just completely negates any valid points you may have made and marks you down as a troll.

 

You also forget that some of us still use film (B&W and colour through my M6 TTL in my case) as well as digital and your dogmatism laced with insults hardly helps promote photography from any medium.

Maybe you would be better off being an ambassador for what you argue by posting some good examples of your own B&W work. It may not prove what you say about the feel of fibre based prints but it would be a lot better than insulting people.

 

I guess this supports my medium argument, but all of my name calling is, in fact, tongue and cheek. So all you snot-nosed digital computer weenie geeks, try not to get offended.

And just so I do not have to defend my remarks anymore, anyone who disagrees with me is wrong, ugly and smells funny. A big Gen-X "whatever" to you. FILM RULES!!!!!

 

I'll take this over fixer any day. My current mess...

 

Marc Bergman , aug 02, 2006; 09:18 p.m.

"Michael, Care to cite a source for these dynamic range figures?"

Sorry for the delay as I have been traveling.

for BW film, Kodak's characteristic curves for 100 Tmax, for example, show exposure range for the film developed in tmax devo at about 3-3.5 log (i.e. 10^3 or 1000; 10^3.5 or 3162). This is close to 10 stops (i.e. 2^10 = 1024) or 11.6 stops (2^11.6 = 3162). I mostly use Tmax or Ilford hp4 with pyro, which seems to give a bit more range in the highlights due to tanning than tmax in regular developing.

Somewhere in the Ansel Adams "the Print" he talks about the relfective range of a bw print. From memory, it is about 1:100, which would be 6.6 stops, hence the need for careful film developing to compress the range and dodging and burning.

For the digital, I am guesstimating from a canon digicam I have. My imacon back seems better, maybe 6.5-7 stops, depends on how much noise one tolerates in the shadows. Hope that is helpful.

 

different sensors put out different dr just like film stocks. fuji s3 has over 12 stops of dr, my d2x however is below 7.

 

Eric, that is a very tidy desktop.

 

At one point, I was saying "sure, what a great way to leverage my investment in LTM lenses in the digital era." (I'm not likely to ever have a digital camera mounting my Topcon lenses. Unless I do serious machining on the camera.)

But then I realize that my investment in LTM lenses is a lot less than the M8 costs. Maybe $1500 at the most.

On the other hand, the other choice would probably be Canon DSLR, and those lenses don't come at all cheap.

I'd also be really concerned about service if Leica isn't saved by the M8. A mechanical film camera can be maintained without parts support. Not so an electronic camera.

 

I like the idea that the AA filter 'ruins' resolution.

That's more than laughable.