If you could have all the M9s you wanted, would you give up your film RFs?

[peteradownunder]

<p>I cant replace the look of B&W film - even if it is scanned and then printed on an Epson. I keep trying believe me I keep trying...for colour - ? - film is dead.<br>

No I wouldnt sell my MP or Xpan or 205Fcc blad for two or three or four M9s...but I will buy one M9 -:)</p>

 

[edward_zimmermann]

<p>Peter A "<em>cant replace the look of B&W film - even if it is scanned and then printed on an Epson. I keep trying believe me I keep trying...for colour - ? - film is dead</em> "<br>

There are, I think, several colour films (such as Agfa Portrait) which too can't really be "emulated" with digital, even when printed on the same RA-4 paper. Its not that digital image capture can't produce sharp images or even good colour but its response and characteristics are not the same. Leaving this, however, aside... Image projection.. Even 1080p HD beamers still don't get anywhere near the resolution and contrast of a transparency. The highest resolution digital projector currently available is around 10 Mpixel (and costs $$$). High quality slide projectors are cheap and while one can print high quality transparencies from digitally captured images their quality is not quite en par with slide film capture AND their cost is very high. While digital capture has on paper significantly higher latitude than reversal film, in practice the differences in underexposure are still there with all kinds of odd artifacts, noise etc. and, in fact, significantly worse overexposure intolerance (clipping).</p>

[sarfaraz_niazi]

<p>Yes I would in a heart beat; why beat a dead issue. Instead I should wake up!</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>For color work, probably. For black and white, certainly not until I use up my stock of Kodak 2475 Recording and Kodak Technical Pan film. It would also be hard to give up 400TMAX (TMY-2) and Tri-X as well.</p>

[steve_larese1]

<p>I'd still shoot film, if only for the reason that I wouldn't take a $$$$ M9 into some of the places I have to go. If my R2 or beater M6 gets ripped off or destroyed, I can live with that (financially, anyway).</p><p>For low light work, I'd be using a D700, even though it's more conspicuous.</p><p>The OP asked if I was "given" several M9s. If the M9 is a digital M6, that would certainly change things, but I'm not holding my breath for a box of free M9s. That said, I'm easy to get ahold of if anyone would like to do so ;)<br></p><p><br></p>

[l_dasousa]

<blockquote>

<p>Subject: If you could have all the M9s you wanted, would you give up your film RFs?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Speaking really, I gave up film some time ago, when it became hard to buy locally and impossible to get quality processing locally. But after the M8 I can imagine having more M9s than I can carry and yet finding all of them in need of sending for repair. So if a rangefinder is necessary I would still want to keep a film Leica as backup.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>I still shoot MF film from time to time ... there's just something about it, especially B&W. And I use a Nikon F6 for B&W.</p>

<p>But I gave up my two M7s and a MP3 when the M8 was announced, and never looked back. I do miss the feel of them in the hand and the act of winding the film.</p>

<p>I've yet to connect with the digital M the way I did with the film Ms. I doubt I ever will. </p>

[35mmdelux]

<p>Get rid of my ability to shoot B&W and color films like astia 100F? No way. I still like the Leica for the original reasons I purchased it in the first place - such as stealthiness, compact, hand made precision.</p>

[frank_horn]

<p>Arthur P--<br>

Regarding your Fuji 690: Have you sometimes wished that it was a 670? <br>

I had a 690 and when I sent the film in to the processor, I'd have it back badly cropped and I presumed they were using a 670 enlarger for my 690 negs. <br>

The Fuji 690 was awesome! "The Texas Leica!"</p>

[astral]

<p>If can use my quirky old 1930~1950's Leica lenses on an M9, at full size (24x36mm), and if the total purchase price and running cost - spread over the next 15 years - is gonna be cheaper than running a IIIa & IIIf, etc, I'll buy one. It will not affect the amount of film I use however. Film will be dead when the last manufacturer makes the last roll or sheet, not before - <em>and it ain't 'appened yet!</em></p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Hi Frank. I have certainly heard of your problem with the film processors, but I usually shoot transparency (positive) film in colour and ask for the negatives back in sheaths. Nowadays I take those to a local processor who tansfers them to numerical before printing onto Fuji Crystal Archive paper, using traditional colour process chemicals. It costs about 12 or 15 dollars (CAN.) for an uncropped 10 x 15 inch print, their maximum size by that machine. The quality is extremely good (also, Wilhelm research puts the Fuji paper near or at the top of the list for projected longevity), so I haven't been scanning and printing myself for the few colour images that I have printed. I don't mind looking at the rest of the chromes on a light box. Apparently projection of 6x9 is a gas, as is 6x7.</p>

<p>I did purchase a mint slightly used GW 670 III but use it only very occasionally, even for black and white, despite the "free" extra number of frames per 120 roll. I agree that the 6x9 is a great size and that the Fuji is of very good quality. I would like to find a good home for the 6x7, if someone is willing to cover what I paid (about 60% of new price, before its discontinuation) and needs a Texas Leica that is much larger in film size than the new Leica S2 in sensor size (I am making an "orange and tangerine" comparison, no doubt).</p>

<p>I had a 6x7 enlarger that I use less these days, as I found a good used 6x9 and 100 mm lens that seems to cover the format well for my B&W printing, which is the bulk of my work.</p>

<p>I presume you no longer have your Fuji 6x9 and wonder if you miss it, if not the processing problem. it is one of the very good values in MF film cameras.</p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>I saw the future by way of a leak and the M9 is a gem. There ought to be one in my future. The trusty and simple film cameras will stay by my side. As will my M8, which, I sense is about to be discontinued.</p>

<p>One thing about the film cameras: Their viewfinders are superior.</p>