Leica M6/Tri-X vs Ricoh GR-D and Leica D-Lux 3

[Nowhereman]

The grain factor is one reason that I've stuck to small-sensor cameras (the Ricoh GR-D and Leica D-Lux 3)

rather than getting an M8, with which I would have to shoot at ISO1250 or 2500 to get a grain effect ? I

don't like to put in grain artificially because, although I do a lot of post-processing, I like to work more

"directly" with regard to grain.

<p>

By clicking below you can see a "slideshow" of 112 B&W pictures, my <[>Bangkok Series</i>, of which 48

were taken with the Leica M6 (mainly with Tri-X, HP5 and some Fuji 1600) and the rest with mainly with

the GR-D, and some with the Leica D-Lux 3. Granted that they're only small jpegs, but I think they

nevetheless show the qulaity of B&W that you can get with small-sensor digital cameras.

<p>

You can see the slideshow by clicking <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/sets/

72157594271568487/show/"><u>here</u>.</a>

<p>

Incidentally, this series is in four "chapters", but without any chapter titles.

<p>

--Mitch/Bangkok

[paul_nelson2]

Thanks for the great pix. I also use M6/TriX etc, and am interested in a D3. Is there any way to know which pix are with the D3, and which are M6? P Nelson

[Nowhereman]

Paul:

<p>

That's the beuty of it: you can't tell -- even on the prints!

<p>

Now, if you go to my <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/

10268776@N00/"><u>flickr site</u></a> you can see that the first few pages (excep

the first two pictures) are the M6 pictures because I uploaded all 48 yesterday. After that

there are a couple of page of D-Lux 3 pictures followed by GR-D pictures, but I'm not sure

that it's worth the effort because if it's so difficult to see the difference, you can safely get

a D-Lux 3!

<p>

--Mitch/Bangkok

[michaelging]

Mitch , I think that many of the photos in your Bangkok portfolio has no or little shadow detail and blown highlights. This might be from the scans, or underexposed and over-developed film , but I do not think that is a fair representation of what Tri-x film can do, versus a digital camera. I like the subjects and composition of many of your photos , but trying to compare B&W film to Digital with these photos is not a true test for ether.

[Nowhereman]

Michael, you're right it's an aesthetic statement, not a camera test. I like relatively high

contrast rather than long-scale midtones. On the other hand the prints show more shadow

detail than the jpegs, although there is at least one picture where the shadows are pushed

completely to black. Also, the highlights are not blown in most of the pictures even though

the light is often harsh, which is common in the tropics except in early morning and late

afternoon.

 

--Mitch/Bangkok

[terry_rory]

Mitch, I own the Ricoh GR-Digital (and it's 21mm convertor) and I am currently considering another good P&S digicam to partner it. (One with IS and a decent quality zoom lens.)

 

I did consider the Leica D-Lux 3/Panasonic DMC-LX2 but (a) It also has 28mm which is not needed (b) the max focal length of the D-Lux 3 lens is only about 112mm © no ability to mount filters.

 

So instead I will probably be getting the Canon Powershot G7 (35-210mm equivalent and with 58mm filter adaptor capability) which does not escape noise problems but at least gives a fair performance up to ISO 400-800 with superior noise reduction software in Digic III.

 

Here is a whole bunch of B&W pics of mine that were taken with Ricoh GR-Digital/Nikon D70/Contax film SLRs/Leica M6/Bessa R3A/Contax T2/GR1V and a few others besides.

 

You would certainly find a couple of M6/Bessa shots and even some Tri-X (and HP5) shots in amongst them somewhere but I am no longer bothered with what camera or film (or sensor) took which picture as I have done the lot! Everything from B&W film from a manual focus camera, developed by myself and scanned myself, to purely digital photographs and I no longer really care what it came from so long as I like it.

 

 

(Suggest you have a decent broadband DSL/ADSL connection for the above link)

[blakley]

Mitch and Trevor, I seriously don't know why either of you would consider another camera. With results like these, it could only be for reasons of aesthetic satisfaction of the machine itself. I suppose it's conceivable you could do better with something "better", but that would certainly be gilding the lily.

[leslie_cheung]

>>>>Paul:

 

That's the beuty of it: you can't tell -- even on the prints!<<<<

 

 

Interesting Mitch. I used your slideshow to see if I can pick out the film shots. With the

exception of a two, I was correct on all counts (I didn't go through all 112 pics). What

does that mean? Probably not much since a good pic is a good pic. For me, grain doesn't

matter much unless it is way excessive. My real beef with digital compact is their

everything in focus look (btw that's how I picked out all the digital shots). I don't

personally like it much as it looks too clinical but I learned to live with it given that I don't

want to spend 5k on a M8 (or 2k on the RD-1) and I don't want to lug dslrs everywhere I

go.

[terry_rory]

"Mitch and Trevor, I seriously don't know why either of you would consider another camera."

 

In my case I want to partner the GR-Digital with something that has a decent zoom (and that does not replicate the 21mm and 28mm the GR-Digital already has), has IS, and is more compact than a DSLR, and takes filters. (I regularly use IR and polarizers)

[Nowhereman]

Trevor:

 

Some very good pictures in your slide show. One of the ones I liked the best is the front of

the automobile, which turns out is a film shot; but the reason I like it, I suppose, is that it

comes close to my own aesthetic.

 

As you know, I have the GR-D and the D-Lux 3. While the latter is a very good camera, I

find it confusing to use it together, or alternately, with the GR-D because the controls are

quite different on the two cameras. Perhaps it would better to use the GR-D together with

the Ricok GX100, but I don't know much about the latter.

 

Recently, I picked up a V-Lux 1 at an attractive price from another member of the Leica

Camera Forum because I was attracted by the idea of a 420mm-equivalent lens with the

DPF of a 90mm. But I haven't had time to shoot with it enough to have a view on it, and I

haven't shot much with a 400mm lens, although there are a few things that I like to try

when I have some time. What I have been able to see, however, is that the V-Lux seems

very good at ISO1600 (RAW). The D-Lux 3 seems to process execssively even the RAW files

at ISO1600, which makes this speed unusable; the GR-D only does JPGs at 1600, althoug I

like the grainy look.

 

I wouldn't consider the G7 because it doesn't have RAW capability, which is important for

me because I do extensive post-processing and often like to print very large, having made

prints as large as 100x133cm (40x52 inches) from GR-D RAW files.

 

--Mitch/Bangkok

[Nowhereman]

<i>Mitch and Trevor, I seriously don't know why either of you would consider another

camera. With results like these, it could only be for reasons of aesthetic satisfaction of the

machine itself. I suppose it's conceivable you could do better with something "better", but

that would certainly be gilding the lily.</i>

<p>

Thanks, Bob. With the aesthetic that I'm going for, which means staying away from an

"exquisite" medium format look, perhaps a "worse" is better. Moriyama Daido used to

shoot with an Olympus half-frame camera for the same reason.

<p>

--Mitch/Bangkok

[Nowhereman]

<i>... I used your slideshow to see if I can pick out the film shots. With the exception of a

two, I was correct on all counts...What does that mean? Probably not much since a good

pic is a good pic. For me, grain doesn't matter much unless it is way excessive. My real

beef with digital compact is their everything in focus look (btw that's how I picked out all

the digital shots). I don't personally like it much as it looks too clinical but I learned to live

with it given that I don't want to spend 5k on a M8 (or 2k on the RD-1) and I don't want to

lug dslrs everywhere I go.</i>

<p>

Leslie:

<p>

Interesting point on the huge DOF of small-sensor cameras: for me, at this stage, I find it

a refreshing change in that the use of large apertures to isolate the main subject seems to

have become too formulaic. In my view, it's not the deep DOF that makes the pictures look

clinical: it's more the general overly smooth look, without any "bite" that some

imperfections produce. Me, I like imperfections, perhaps because that's what I do the

best.

<p>

--Mitch/Bangkok

[gary_gumanow]

Mitch,

 

Nice set of street photos you've got on flickr. I shoot all film, went digital for a while and came back to film, mostly Medium Format (645), because I hated grain. Well, I picked up an M6 about six months ago and can say that I don't fear the grain any longer. The streets are such a much bigger challenge for all of us to make interesting compositions and art... a puzzle.

 

Thanks for sharing your photos with us, and let Michael know that this isn't a contest. I appreciate your inquiry into how to get better pics with digital, an interesting exploration.

Gary

[leslie_cheung]

Mitch,

 

Aesthetics aside, with film or FF, one can control the amount of DOF. That's the

difference. You have a choice. Anyhow, I enjoy your work. I dig the ambience. Bangkok

looks fun. I might be visiting in July.

 

Vivek,

 

I hope you find a GR-D for $300 but it seems like they are going for alittle more. I found a

good price on a gx100. Might actually pick one up tomorrow.

[michaelging]

Gary ,I said he was making a comparison between film and digital, which he did with the same photos in 3 different posts, I did not say it was a contest. I think he explained very well his photos and technique though his follow up post. One of the best things about PN, in my opinion, is that thought and process are questioned, which benefits everyone on the site. If people want to show their photos, or make assumptions about photography and not receive any critical thought, they should only share them with their family.

[Nowhereman]

Michael, you're right about my having framed the discussion in film versus diigital for the

three cameras; and I must admit that this wasn't what interested me the most, although it

is a question in which many people are interested. I'm not really that caught up in what

camera I use, although I haven't shot with fim since I got my GR-D last July. But this

question obviouly interested a lot of people -- or was it the nudes? -- and I got a lot

people viewing the slideshow.

 

Actuallly, I haven't shot with film since I got the GR-D last Juky. While I love my M6s and

their lenses I haven't been able to get myself to worry about whether my film is not out of

date, drive 45 min to a local lab ? I don't want to get into "tropical processing myself --

drive another 45 min a couple days later to pick up the film, scan at 15 min per frame, and

then spot. It's a big effort to use film, not speak about film, development and contact

sheet cost, although the two latter are relatively cheap in Bangkok. I'm now thinkin og

selling my two M6s: I used to believe that one never should sell a Leica, but now I'm

beginning to think that this rule no longer applies.

 

By framing the discussion in my posting in terms of digital vs analogue cameras I got a lot

of viewers, but few substantive comments on the pictures themselves and the structure of

the four chapters that I mentioned, and none on the general impact of what the pcitures

are saying ? I feel that they have something to say. Perhaps I should have framed the

posting differently, but then I would not have gotten over 1,000 views of the slideshow in

a day.

 

?Mitch/Bangkok

[michaelging]

Mitch, I agree, many times its how well framed the question is, that determines how many people read a post in the first place. As I said, in my first post,I like many of the photos in your flicker portfolio. Having been to Thailand 3 times myself, and lived in Asia for 2 yrs, I enjoyed very much seeing the culture, and your photos did that very well. I do find, as a person who shoot digital for a living, and film as a passion , that the difference in quality between them is almost non-existent in most cases. I will check back as you post more photos on your flicker site, as they do have something to say. Thanks for sharing the photos and thoughts in the first place.

[terry_rory]

The M6 TTL (and a Lomo LCA) were the last film cameras I used before selling them both.

 

Some of the proceeds from the M6 bought the Ricoh GR-Digital 'creative set' (camera, adaptor, 21mm convertor, hotshoe optical VF, two point neck strap etc)

 

 

I use a Nikon D70 also but will not be upgrading from it to another DSLR in the near future. Instead I am enjoying compact P&S shooting so much hence another part of the reasoning behind wanting to add a Canon G7 or similar.

 

I still cannot understand why the Panasonic DMC-LX2 costs 260 GBP and the identical Leica D-LUX3 costs 489 GBP (current amazon uk prices & in stock and shipped by amazon uk)

 

I can understand a small premium for different bundled software/badge etc on the Leica model but not a 229 GBP (450 dollars) difference!

 

Here in the UK we also enjoy a full years guarantee/warranty (unlike the Panasonic USA 90 day setup) so even less justification for the difference.

 

 

Maybe Mitch could enlighten us as to why he chose the Leica model over the Panasonic?

[jerry_kirkwood]

<i>Mitch and Trevor, I seriously don't know why either of you would consider another camera. With results like these, it could only be for reasons of aesthetic satisfaction of the machine itself.</i></p>Wellsir, on the flipside there's something to be said for being able to strut around with a $5000 camera sporting a blinking red IR filter, but I'll refrain from saying it {grin}

[vivek iyer]

<i>Wellsir, on the flipside there's something to be said for being able to strut around with a $5000 camera sporting a blinking red IR filter, but I'll refrain from saying it {grin}</i>

<p>

Oh, don't be so shy. Please do tell which camera sells for $5,000 and sports a <i>blinking red IR filter</i>.

<p>

The suspense it a bit too much!

[Nowhereman]

<i>I still cannot understand why the Panasonic DMC-LX2 costs 260 GBP and the identical

Leica D-LUX3 costs 489 GBP (current amazon uk prices & in stock and shipped by amazon

uk)...I can understand a small premium for different bundled software/badge etc on the

Leica model but not a 229 GBP (450 dollars) difference!...Here in the UK we also enjoy a

full years guarantee/warranty (unlike the Panasonic USA 90 day setup) so even less

justification for the difference....Maybe Mitch could enlighten us as to why he chose the

Leica model over the Panasonic?</i>

<p>

Trevor:

<p>

The UK prices are so high that they distort everything. I bought the camera in Hong Kong

where the difference between the Panasonic and the Leica version was some $250-300

and not GBP249. On the other hand, this was not a rational decision as I only shoot in RAW

format. I just liked the look of the D-Lux 3: I was in Hong Kong last December when the

camera was not easily available -- people were posting silly things like that it was already

being discontinued -- and I stumbled on a shop that had one, while all the other shops

said it be a few monhs before they got more of them; so it was pretty much an impulse

purchace.

<p>

--Mitch/Bangkok

[Nowhereman]

<i> I do find, as a person who shoot digital for a living, and film as a passion , that the

difference in quality between them is almost non-existent in most cases.</i>

<p>

If that is the case what makes you go through the extra trouble of shooting film? I haven't

been able to get myself to do it for the reasons stated in one of the posts above; and Trevor

has had the courage to sell his film camera, while I'm still pondering the maxim "never sell a

Leica."

<p>

--Mitch/Bangkok

[michaelging]

As I sit here answering this question , I am inverting a tank with film in every 30 sec. I guess part of my still using film for my own work is the process, where I rather enjoy developing my film and ether printing it or scanning it. I am a sharpness freak and the kinds of cameras I have,that have really sharp lenses are film cameras. I have Nikon RF,Contax RF from the 50's, as well as a pair of Contax G2's with a full set of lenses. Traveling with film is not as easy as digital,and I will probably buy a D200 so that I can use all my Nikon SLR glass,but I am not yet ready to give up my film. I do think if contax came out with a Digital G2, that I could use my lenses with ,I might make the switch. I never claimed to be very bright.

[terry_rory]

Regrettably Contax (Kyocera) no longer make any cameras, digital or film.

 

Maybe the name will be resurrected by Zeiss in partnership with some other company (assuming Zeiss still have any rights to the name 'Contax').

[ray .]

Not the main reason, but one of the reasons I started doing photography was because it

always seemed so much less labor intensive than say.. painting. Sort of instant gratification.

That was with 35mm, or any format film, for that matter. Now it's funny how many of us

consider using film to be so much work.