Jump to content

Digital M? Why?

street photography by dimi
 Share

Recommended Posts

street photography by dimi

street photography by dimi

Posted
Posted

I read a lot on this forum about digital M! I think that we are very close to

the release of the new digital M body of Leica, but on the other hand I must

ask to myself and all you: Why a digital M?

 

I know that the 70-80% of Leica M users is using B&W films. Also it is known

that the digital B&W printing is very far in quality from a FB print. So this

new camera will be suitable only for a small group of M users which are using

color or slide films. There are some professional photographers (especially

wedding photographers) all around the world using Leica M, but I think that

they are using B&W, too. So, who will buy a very expensive digital M body!

 

Reading the postings that most Leica funs have made on this forum, I realize

that most of them like to have a digital M for fun! I think that nobody can

buy a 5000 � 6000 $ camera in order to play with it! All the posts agree that

this camera will have a 10mp sensor with 1,33 factor, something like DMR. DMR

is sold in Europe about 4000 � 4500 euros and it is only a digital back! I

think that a 10mp digital M which is both camera and back will cost more! I

think that its price will be around 6000 euros. It is a pity to spend this

amount in order to have the similar print quality, that an ordinary 2,5 euros

color film can easily produce! I use only B&W since 1989 which I develop and

print myself. Before 1989 I was printing color in my darkroom having excellent

results. Last month I tried DMR with a R8 and a couple of very good Leica

lenses. Yes, R8 with DMR is one of the best digital cameras I have ever tried

but I can reassure you that my 20 years old hand made 30x40cm color prints

looks better in quality than prints produced from DMR! I think that analog and

digital photography are different things. The hand made color prints have

better colors and they look like 3D! On the other hand the digital prints from

DMR are sharp and good but they are flat. Also the digital colors are very

different from the colors produced by a color or slide film. The print quality

is very bad when you go upper than 400ASA and this is a big disadvantage of

all digital cameras. Yes, it is fun to use digital cameras! On PC monitors all

digital images are perfect but when you print them (both in inkjet printers or

minilabs) they loose a lot from their quality. People say that digital

photography is easy and fast. I believe the opposite! In order to have good

results you must have a very good digital camera and then you have to be a

master of Photoshop! You need to spend a lot of time to convert a single DNG

file in order to produce a good quality final print. Also you need a lot of

money to buy the best computer, the best monitor, the best printer and so on!

 

The future is digital and perhaps the output of digital cameras in the future

will be better and better. Also I believe that they will find new ways in

order to have better digital B&W prints equal to FB prints but as far as I can

find B&W films and papers I will continue with them, and my old now M6!

 

I am waiting for your comments!

 

Best regards from Athens, Greece

 

Dimitris

Link to comment
Share on other sites
andrewlamb

andrewlamb

Posted
Posted

Rene,

 

If you are alluding to the famed "because it's there" quotation, that was actually said by

another mountaineer, Mallory, in 1924. Incidentally, Mallory may have actually been the first

person to climb Everest but as he died on the descent the jury is still out on what really

happened.

 

If you are alluding to a totally different quote, this screen will self-destruct in five seconds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dan flanders

dan flanders

Posted
Posted
To me the only digital M that would make sense would be a thin pack that would replace the back door. It need not be complitated by all the popular bells and whistles that typify the current digital cameras. In my most arrogant opinion a significant number of Leicaphiles would be satisfied with a modest megapixel sensor, raw recording, and multiple memory card slots. The camera would not be altered other than to make the shutter release also initate the digital exposure. The unused film cartridge space could accommodate the necessary battery pack. Such processing as necessary could be done in the computer software, not the camera. <p>Several years ago I bought the Olympus 5050 at the prevailing street price, and to this day have had need only for the most basic manipulations -- the other options only complicate the making of the final image. Today that camera, though still operationally useful, is practically worthless from the trade in standpoint; much the same as my old 2meg PC was when I converted to Windows! Electronic/digital progress can be counted upon to make anything now available obsolete in the next year. The picture may be different for professionals who can amortize their equiment, but for the other portion of Leicaphiles the simplicity of the original Barnack concept is still worth exploiting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
x-ray

x-ray

Posted
Posted

99% of the commercial pro world, myself included, now shoot mostly digital. My business has gone from roughly 300 rolls of 120 E-6 + 100-200 sheets of 4x5 to 8x10 E-6 per month to about twenty rolls of 120 and 50 sheets of 4x5 per year. A high percentage of us use cameras ranging from $8000 for a body(canon 1DsmkII)to approaching $30,000 for a digital 2-1/4 back. Also keep in mind that one of the most popular pro cameras is the 8mp / 1.3x Canon 1DmkIIn at roughly $4,000. Many of us pros have Leica M's and a bag full of lenses. The reason most of us do not use our M's for commercial shooting is simply that they are film and clients don't want to pay for film. My personal view is that Leica is going to sell to the pro and the wealthier amateur. I believe this is the intended market.

 

As to quality, very sorry to disagree but I can assure you that you can not tell the difference in custom 11x17 inch prints from the 1DsII and MF film drum scanned. The secret to this is shooting RAW files and being a master at photoshop as you mentioned. Nothing comes easy. Certainly you can shoot jpg's and send them to a lab and hope for the best. If you do this with film you're not going to get great quality either. Quality prints come from people who know what they are doing and take the time to do things right. Just because a person can come up with the cash for an expensive digital or film camera doesn't mean the images will be master quality. I don't think digital is any harder or easier when it comes to quality, it's just different.

 

 

http://web.mac.com/markgowen/iWeb/photographerscircle/mbr_DonDudenbostel_samples.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
street photography by dimi

street photography by dimi

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Dear Don,

It is sure that pros have to continue with digital as far as the cost of the film is concerned!

I agree, too, that you have very expensive digital cameras. I believe that you can not work with cheaper digital cameras, because using them you can not offer to your clients a quality standard. This is the main point of my question: do we (serious amateur) must pay these huge amounts in order to buy a digital M and to get at list similar in quality results like we get from our old M cameras?

Concerning the quality I am making a comparison between a hand printed color print from a color negative and prints from a DMR.

 

You can check also this: www.photoart.gr/kioseoglou

 

Dimitris

Link to comment
Share on other sites
larrybc

larrybc

Posted
Posted

> I know that the 70-80% of Leica M users is using B&W films.

<br>> Also it is known that the digital B&W printing is very far

<br>> in quality from a FB print.

<br>

<br>I don't doubt that a master FB print is something wonderful to behold, but you can still get absolutely stunning results from digital as well. And you can get those results without requiring the space of a darkroom, or the hassle of maintaining fresh chemicals. I've done the darkroom thing off and on since '77 and I haven't gone back since trying digital printing 3 yrs ago.

<br>

<br>> its price will be around 6000 euros. It is a pity to spend

<br>> this amount in order to have the similar print quality, that

<br>> an ordinary 2,5 euros color film can easily produce!

<br>

<br>For many of us, it's hard to justify the price of a Leica film camera, let alone a digital one. But if you think the raison d'etre of digital is to provide the same features as film, then your thinking is way off base. For anyone who is seeking what film provides and nothing more, digital is a poor choice.

<br>

<br>> I use

<br>> only B&W since 1989 which I develop and print myself. Before

<br>> 1989 I was printing color in my darkroom having excellent

<br>> results. Last month I tried DMR with a R8 and a couple of

<br>> very good Leica lenses. Yes, R8 with DMR is one of the best

<br>> digital cameras I have ever tried but I can reassure you

<br>> that my 20 years old hand made 30x40cm color prints looks

<br>> better in quality than prints produced from DMR! I think

<br>> that analog and digital photography are different things.

<br>>

<br>> The hand made color prints have better colors and they look

<br>> like 3D! On the other hand the digital prints from DMR are

<br>> sharp and good but they are flat. Also the digital colors

<br>> are very different from the colors produced by a color or

<br>> slide film.

<br>

<br>So you've been doing analogue darkroom work for over a decade, and how long have you been practicing your digital darkroom skills? As you've discovered, it isn't a simple point and click operation. Flip through some issues of Sports Illustrated and try to figure out which shots are digital and which are film.

<br>

<br>> The print quality is very bad when you go upper

<br>> than 400ASA and this is a big disadvantage of all digital

<br>> cameras.

<br>

<br>Have you tried ISO400 on a DSLR? The image quality of ISO800 on my D70 and the D50 and Canon 300D easily exceed that of colour ISO film. Even compared to b/w film, I find the DSLR ISO800 to be superior except in terms of dynamic range. Your statement is contrary to the experience of many DSLR users.

<br>

<br>[snip]

<br>> You need to spend a

<br>> lot of time to convert a single DNG file in order to produce

<br>> a good quality final print.

<br>

<br>Absolutely not true at all. Many pro photographers shoot in JPG mode.

<br>

<br>> Also you need a lot of money to

<br>> buy the best computer, the best monitor, the best printer

<br>> and so on!

<br>

<br>Assuming you want to do the work yourself and not job out the printing to a lab, then yes, you'll need a digital darkroom. But it needs a lot less space than your chemical darkroom and it can do a multitude of other things as well. BTW, just how often did you do colour film developing and printing in your darkroom? For me it was time-consuming and expensive.

<br>

<br>> The future is digital and perhaps the output of digital

<br>> cameras in the future will be better and better. Also I

<br>> believe that they will find new ways in order to have better

<br>> digital B&W prints equal to FB prints but as far as I can

<br>> find B&W films and papers I will continue with them, and my

<br>> old now M6!

<br>

<br>Nothing wrong with that. I still have three Nikon F bodies sitting in my filing cabinet and I fire the shutters every few months to keep them lubricated. But my fondness for mechanical film gear doesn't blind me to the advantages of digital.

<br>

<br>Sure, digital has its downsides (someone really needs to address the issue of creating a functionally permanent storage medium) but you've made statements about it that simply aren't true.

<br>

<br>I think you need to see some digital prints from photographers who know how to use the medium. I didn't believe that inkjet b/w prints could be as good as emulsion prints until somebody sent me some samples. After that, I started looking for a photo-quality inkjet printer. I ended up with an HP7960 that cost CAD$150 and have been loving the results. They rival anything I've gotten using RC paper. My next printer will probably be an Epson pigment-based printer that will let me experiment with a greater variety of papers.

<br>

<br>larsbc

<br>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
larry_kincaid1

larry_kincaid1

Posted
Posted
I wish these film/digital discussion would simply begin with what was said above: "it's just different." You can look at the photo.net portfolio of top rated photos and see the difference. Neither worse or better, just different kind of image. Young people will never know the difference, because they will never get a chance to see it. To me the whole issue revolves around how the image--film or digital--is finished and printed. Good labs to print film are disappearing--I can do a better job at home with PS and HP8750. Labs are also mostly converting to digital to print as well. So, unless you're in the darkroom yourself, you're producing a digital print. If this is reality--and it is--then the issue is whether or not to go through the film medium via Leica film camera and film scanner, or go directly from camera to computer to PS to print. In other words, the choices for those of us who like film are narrow and disappearing. So, if I can afford a M8 and will not notice the difference in the print, but still see the Leica difference from other film and digital cameras, then whey not buy one to take advantage of the huge amount of $ already invested in superior Leica lenses. If it's not as good or also just "different," then I'll keep scanning film. Wait and see all over again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
x-ray

x-ray

Posted
Posted
Each of us have our own reasons for what we shoot. My business revolves around digital and my personal documentary work centers around B&W film. For my personal work digital is simply too clean. My work needs the grit and feel of B&W film not the pearl smooth look of high quality digital. Film and digital complement each other but do not replace each other in all areas however they do overlap. Film has advantages in some areas and digital in others. It's simply different tools for different applications. I peraonally hope B&W film never goes away and do not think it will in my lifetime. I've used Leica M's for nearly forty years and will continue to use them as long as long as I can lift them to my eye.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
red dawn

red dawn

Posted
Posted

"The print quality is very bad when you go upper than 400ASA and this is a big disadvantage of all digital cameras"

 

Dimitris, I'm not sure how many digital cameras u've gone through, or if all the digital output u've ever seen are only from Leica point and shoots, but this statement alone shows ur ignorance of current technology and really discredits you from making judgements about digital and film output.

 

For your information, any "cheap" digital SLR now under USD $1k can produce beautiful low noise high ISO files ISO 400 to 1600 (and some, 3200), cleaner than any high ISO film output. I have thousands of dollars on Leica M equipment (many bought new from store) but the simple truth is digital technology is so mature now, the choice between digital and film is no longer that of a technical quality consideration, but a matter of preference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
andy_piper2

andy_piper2

Posted
Posted

Dimitris: I certainly hope you can shoot and print B&W via your M6 for as long as you desire.

 

But I think your assumption that "70-80% of Leica M users [are] using B&W films" is not accurate.

 

Historically, Leicas and Kodachrome (and other slide films) have gone together for 70 years.

 

And certainly of the Leica photographers whose work I follow, the vast majority shoot color. To name a few: Alex Webb, Stuart Franklin, David Alan Harvey, Ernst Haas, and Susan Meiselas.

 

Contantine "Costa" Manos, an American of Greek extraction (coincidentally), is another Leica photographer whose work I've followed for years. Began by working in B&W, but has done a LOT of color as well.

 

http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/TreePf_MAG.aspx?Stat=Photographers_Portfolio&E=29YL53UIC@P

 

I do find it funny that in these two threads people have defended film as more reliable or "truthful" than digital, and then praise the 'grittiness' of B&W images.

 

The world around us is in color and contains no grain (except, perhaps, the occasional beach) - removing the color and adding film artifacts is hardly a realistic or truthful way of recording that world.

 

Not that it's bad - but it has no special claim to truthfulness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mark_ryan2

mark_ryan2

Posted
Posted

Digital bashing on an internet forum. That's like complaining about low morals in women these days while sitting in a strip club.

 

To me, especially for an amateur, digital has it all over film because of the speed and ease of sharing the images. I do the Weekly Assignment over at Fred Miranda, and I don't think I could do that with film. Fiftytwo opportunities a year to work thru a concept and compare and learn from others each week is a powerful teaching tool. I used to print my stuff and frame a few, but most just sat in my portfolio. The internet makes this far more of a social and learning experience. Could you do it with film, yes. Could you do it without the internet, yes. But digital with the internet I think can be responsible for making a lot of people better photographers.

 

Plus, I can rip off 100 frames of my kid, or 50 night shots with out it costing me $40-50 bucks.

 

Loading your own ammunition for guns is supposed to save you money, but they say most people spend the same and just shoot more, and I think that is true of digital and a good thing. It isn't so much spary-and-pray for a shot, but it makes it so much easier to experiment.

 

The comment about a FB print reminds me of the scene in "I, robot" where Will Smith's character tells Sonny the Robot that he isn't human and can't paint a beautiful painting or compose a symphony. The robot asks Smith's character, "Can you?". Sure a FB print can look better than something off my 2200, but I sure as heck can't do it.

 

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites
len_smith

len_smith

Posted
Posted

Dimitris Kioseoglou wrote:

 

>I know that the 70-80% of Leica M users is using B&W films.

 

With respect, Dimitris, you do not know that, and I think that you are quite wrong in that assumption.

 

>Also it is known that the digital B&W printing is very far in quality from a FB print.

 

Alas, wrong again.

 

>So this new camera will be suitable only for a small group of M users which are using color or slide films.

 

Two wrong assumptions have led you to a conclusion that is also wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...