Reverse to Jack; experiences from having owned a digital and going back to Leica/film

[jean_.]

Hard to tell, actually. I'm using both digital and leica, and 'm always torn in between. When shooting digital, I miss the fun and ease of the leica, and when I have to scan the film I kick my own butt for not having done it digital.

 

Well.. currently I prefer the low-tech leica, with not other stuff than film to worry about. Especially when travelling the digital gear is just to much hassle for me, I don't enjoy packing and carrying all these ac adaptors, chargers, cables. And these HUGE dslrs are just to big for me to carry them like i carry the leica.

 

The day there is a camera which combines the M and digital, I guess that will be the last day I'll develop a roll of film.. I feel that day is coming closer, but still many many rolls to develop until then.

[jackflesher]

Hi Patrick:

 

I can add the following: I took a three week trip this summer and was apprehensive about carrying all of the chargers, laptop, etc. As I packed, I realized that everything fit in my camera bag just fine and in fact the power converters, DSLR charger, laptop plus its charger and 3 gigs of CF cards all took up WAYYYYY less space than my usual film supply for a three week trip would have! In a way this was a liberating epiphany for me, as I always assumed that travelling with all that extra digital "stuff" would be a real PITA. Fact is, not having to worry about film was liberating. But then I shoot a LOT when I travel ;)

 

Suffice it to say that on my next trip, I will have a DSLR and a couple of lenses and maybe a small digital P&S (like the new Panasonic ;) ) as back-up -- and probably no film camera. However, for a stroll around town in the evening, an older RF camera and one lens backed with Tri-X or TMAX 3200 remainis very alluring to me ;) Many made the point in my post that it doesn't have to be an either/or choice and I certainly agree IF finances permit... In your case you are fortunate and have both systems already.

 

There is one other thing to consider when you only have one system to worry about and I speak to this from personal experience -- you will spend zero time trying to figure out which camera to take on a trip :))) This reminds of an old western sage: "Be careful around the man who owns only one gun -- he probably knows how to use it!"

 

Cheers,

 

Jack

[jose f.]

If you're doing a family trip with two preschoolers, you'll be lucky to have time to change lenses, no matter what you bring. : )

[fotografz]

Patrick, I've never seen it as an either/or situation. You have some nice gear that

offers different solutions to different requirements. On my trip to NYC this October I

took a M, 3 lenses and a bag of B&W film. Our vacation to Martha's Vineyard? A

Contax ND and 3 mammoth Zeiss lenses and 6 one gig CF cards. You have a pretty

good idea what you'll be after, so selecting gear to match the photographic objective

shouldn't be brain surgery.

 

Frankly, selecting between a Canon 10D and a zoom verses a M and 3 lenses (in terms

of comfort) is just about a wash. You do not need all the junk that comes with the

10D camera, and certainly not a laptop. Pack the battery charger in your bag and you

only need to carry the camera and CF cards on your person while traveling. If storage

is an issue get a 40 gig iPod and you can use it for a lot more than just storing

photos.

[patricks]

Hey, Jack, thanks for chiming in. And I'll adopt that saying from now on - the best one in a long time!

 

On a comparisations, I think I shot considerably less film than you do and film is plentifull where I am going to be. Additionally, my huge-a#)(*$#@ Toshiba multi-media laptop weighs almost 8 lbs without any power-adapter and extra cords. Sure, it can fit into a nice digital-style photo-bag like the Lowepro Stealth Reporter, but still it will add an extra 15-20 lbs when it is all said and done. I don't even own any of that large/heavy L glass!

 

At any rate, the Leica is a given on this trip, the DSLR TBD. Thanks for reflecting on the topic.

[patricks]

Marc, I agree that chosing between the DSLR and a basic Leica combo is not a real option. And I do have an order in for that iPod via a friend who works for Apple along w/ a Belkin card reader.

 

To the topic, I know you are one of the strong believers of shooting digital parallell to various film, both 35mm and MF, but what is your take after having used digital so long? Has it made your life easier (apart from not having to pay dev.fees for all those wedding shots). Are you ever concerned about back-up and/or being able to retrieve your digital images 10 years from now? Are your digital images "better" than your old 35mm photos? (I guess the SLR ones since there is no point of comparing Leica in this department).

 

Cheers,

[gerry_szarek]

Patrick, Marc, et al

 

Let's see I have a 10D with a 17-40, a cheap 28-90 (good for the beach and sand, no loss if it get's grimed), and a cheap 100-400, on the Leica side I have a 135F4, 90F2.8, 50F2, 35F1.4, 28F2.8, 21F2.8 with a M4-P and Hexar RF. I use the 10D at birthdays, vacations, general scenary shots, the Leica/Hexar when I need to be silent and unobtrusive (sp).

 

My current favorite carry around job is the 50F2 on the Hexar. If I'm taking pictures of the kids it's a 10D and just blast away. For vacation it was the 10D, and the Hexar RF w 28 and 50.

 

My recommendation for you is to take the 10D the battery charger and some type of storage device (note there are several devices that burn the CF cards to CD's) that's it note some photo labs will now burn your CF card to a CD while you wait (at least here in New England). I am very fortunately out of the diaper bag biz, so carrying 10lbs of gear and laptop to the Martha's Vineyard isn't an issue for me, I also can't afford a trip to Europe.

 

Have a great trip, I assume you are not relocating south of the border?

 

Gerry

[jerry_freeman1]

I guess it all depends on need. I hate navigating menus to operate digital cameras�

had and sold a D1H(eavy), and a CP 990�very nice but low ccd camera. Batteries and

chargers are a drag. but I also hate messing with film. buying it, carrying it,

processing it, and scanning it. Same difference, a pocket full of batteries and cards,

or a pocket full of film. I could post process a entire card on demand in 'far' less time

than messing with film.

 

I love my bright M2 rangefinder, and the FM3a is ok when I have a need for tele/

macro work. Guess I'm the perfect candidate for, and would buy, a manual digital M

walk around camera, with real lenses and rangefinder. Not holding my breath while I

buy some more film. Bummer :) ...jf

[rico_tudor]

I cannot devote the time to scan ten frames at a sitting, let alone hundreds. With all its warts, a DSLR is ideal for banging out the images for digital destinations like the Web or a CDROM. Lately, I prefer 4x6 prints with the occasional enlargement, and 135 film is perfectly up to the task (easy, too). Travel plans call for a Contax Aria with two small primes, but my new M4 may take pole position.

[gary_brown2]

Patrick, good thread!!! I still have your old M6 and also a 1D and 10D canon. Needless to say I still love to use both systems. I'm now off to shoot a play which is a joy with digital. Last summer I went cqmping for a week with my trusty M6 50 chron. I guess I just like image making and being able to switch as I need or feel is a real sense of freedom. Keep writing your thoughts.. Gary

[Allen Herbert]

I use Digital and Film, because i like choice. Both have got their strengths and weaknesses...enjoy both, why not.

[george_b1]

I've had the pleasant opportunity to meet Patrick - - once with his older, very active and inquisitive son.

 

Go back and read Patrick's original message, please!

 

Patrick has to balance the realities of travelling with two youngsters and a modicum of camera gear and still be able to shoot

 

IMHO, the M with a 35 0r 50 will enable him to do that.

[wai_leong_lee]

I've brought an Canon EOS 30 SLR, Minilux and Canon G2 on my recent trip to Borobudur.

 

The SLR is for the "important shots" (ie prints that hopefully can be enlarged if desired, slides that can be shown, etc), the G2 is for the wife who wants instant gratification (and also for testing out difficult metering situations and long exposures), while the Minilux is my carry around town camera.

 

That seemed to work ok, and I've just got an M4, so in future I might carry the M4, G2 and a Minilux (or perhaps an SLR with long telephoto) for other trips.

 

I know many people think scanning is a dog, but I don't really want to scan my slides or negatives (it's actually my wife who wants it), 20 years ago there was no such thing as scanning, we all just shot film and kept the negs and slides, so I don't want it to be an issue today. If I want a digital image, I'd use my G2, but for me, the reason for still using film is to enjoy the quality and beauty film, not to insert an extra step into the digital imaging process.

[kevin m.]

Hmmm, maybe a checklist would help?

<p>

<i>1. Travelling Solo:</i> Bring as much gear as you care to carry and wait for ideal light.

<p>

<i>2. Travelling with significant other:</i> Bring enough gear to counterbalance the cosmetics bag on your opposite shoulder. Oh, and a flash with a softbox. Make sure she understands you'll want a free day to shoot sometime during the trip.

<p>

<i>3. Travelling with significant other and one child:</i> Ask your friends on the forum what Domke's smallest bag is, and is it spill-proof. Does it have any little pockets that might hold wipees or a sipee cup? Autofocus might be nice. Make sure significant other understands that if she sees you with a camera in your hand, it's <i>her</i> responsibility to keep an eye on the kid.

<p>

<i>4. Travelling with significant other and two children:</i> Ask friends on forum if it's safe to carry a Leica M/Canon D10/etc. in a diaper bag. Also, if they could only bring <i>one</i> lens to Europe/Disneyland/the In-Laws, what lens would it be?

<p>

<i>5. Travelling with significant other and more than two kids:</i> Postcards are nice.

[mark_b.]

Kevin,

What about carrying the Olympus PHD P&S in the diaper bag?!

[anupun_sra_ium]

Last Wednesday I came back from Paris. We were a tour group of around 15 people. I took a 35mm and a 85mm prime lenses with Fuji NPC 160, Fuji Press 800, and Kodak T400CN negative films. For two other tourists, each brought a Nikon N70 with a slow 35-80mm consumer zoom. All the rest of the tourists used digital cameras.

 

Film cannot be loaded as checked luggage. I brought around two dozen rolls of film. So my camera bag was the largest among the group. A security guard at Roissy Charles de Gaulle airport told me to open my camera bag for complete check. From X-rays monitor, she was not sure whether my 85mm lens was just some photographic equipment or a hand grenade.

 

Each day, we visited a couple of chateaus and museums. In and out. In and out. I had to change films from low-speed to high-speed several times a day. It was not a big problem for me. I had frequently done this for many years. But I could not help wondering whether life would be easier if I went different route. For tourists with digital cameras, they just switched ISO setting. With shorter focal length, they could handheld their cameras at slower speed than 135 format film cameras. Their digital cameras and memory cards also took much less space than my film gear. So they could walk Paris street easier and still had some space left for several bottles of perfume and cosmetics from duty-free shops.

 

One roll of Fuji Press 800 film got stuck mid-roll inside the camera. I had to remove that roll out or I could not use the camera for the rest of the trip . It was also not a big problem for me. I had done this for many years. But being outside Versailles, I had to use my coat as a light-tight bag for changing film. Other tourists thought that I went insane when I took off my coat in 10 degree Celsius autumn.

 

For travel snapshots, the beauty of background blurness from prime lens became its own enemy. It does not mean that most people hate photographs with smooth background blurness or great "bokeh". They just cannot remember where they were when the photograph was taken if the background is not sharp enough.

 

Near the end of our trip, my wife asked me whether I wanted to go digital. She asked me if we had a chance for a trip to Europe again, would it be easier to use digital gear instead of film? And she would bought them for me with her own money. How could I resist?

 

I still love film and I am not a the point of selling my film gear. But for a family trip like the one that Patrick asked, ....

[patricks]

Well, thanks to all who took the time to read and/or respond. My take is still that using/travelling w/ digital has some consequences that one might not factor in from start, even if it indeed has some major advantages as well. I'll try to bring both systems on this particular trip, leave on at home for daily excurisions depending on the need that particular day. Lastly, how can I not end this thread with a little digital snap of my boys :-) </p>

 

<center><img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1917853&size=md"></center>

[steven_blumenkranz]

I own a digital SLR, a digital point and shoot, a hassy H1 with a Kodak back

and two Leicas with several lenses. My wife and I took the entire inventory

with us to Cuba a few weeks ago, along with chargers, batteries, a printer and

a digital wallet. Here is what I found: For ease in shooting, use the Leicas, for

economy use digital. for starting a conversation the digital display is really

useful. If you shoot a lot changing batteries is as time consuming a changing

film. If you are in low light, fast film is better than uping the ASA on a digital.

proofing is easier with film even though you need to scan the selected images

later. The time to transfer, back up and convert a digital file is about the same

as to scan. But here is the biggest difference: since "film" is free and

abundant with the digitals, you tend to take several exposures of the same

subject only to need to weed out later. With film you tend to be more careful.

 

Moral of the story, both formats have their place and I will continue to use

both. If I have to take only one camera it will depend upon the nature of the

outing or job; but film is easier.

 

Steve

[soboyle www.oboylephoto.co]

For travel the rangefinder makes sense. CLoser to home I shoot digital. Whan I travel my Contax G system goes, If I could afford a M system, then that would go. I can fit the whole kit into a nice light waist bag and be ready for most anything likely to be encountered while traveling.

I did travel this summer with just a Canon G3, and was very impressed with the images from that camera, plus its a very light easy camera to carry, but shutter lag and slow focus makes it a bit frustrating to use.

[travis1]

go with the camera you are most comfotable with. WOrry about the images later (i.e retrieval etc..).

[gerry_szarek]

Patrick, I recommend you get some harness's for the kids they look like a handfull (just like mine). Also don't leave your camera's laptop or any other electronic device near there reach, you may find it used in gravity experiments.

 

If you can get away alone with your wife I would bring the Leica's, if you can't just take the 10D.

 

Gerry

[patricks]

yeah, like my wife would like me to spend time thinking about and taking photos if we managed to get a couple of hours to ourselves :-)

[bill_g2]

<p>This is a topic that I can really identify with-- traveling in Europe with camera(s) *and* kid(s).

 

<p>If I were you, I pick either the M or the DSLR but not take both. It isn't a matter of whether film or digital is better. They both have their advantages.

 

<p>For me, it comes down to simplicity. Having too much gear along is that much more of a burden when I'm also trying to keep up with kids. I don't have the time to constantly be swapping gear around. Living in hotels with little children is its own special treat, especially in Europe where the rooms tend to be small and there isn't space to really keep everything out of reach. Less is more.

 

<p>If it were me, I would probably take the M. The size and weight would be the deciding factor.

 

<p>I guess the final straw on this for me is that having this trip recorded on film would have some advantages. After the trip, you can quickly proof the photos. Also, it would have maximum archive life because you have both the negatives and you can scan them.

 

<p>One more thing... unless you plan on carrying children in a backpack carrier, take a look at the Lowepro Rover AW backpack. It is especially useful for travel with children because the bottom half holds camera gear and the top half can be used for carrying a lot of other kid essentials for daily outings.

 

<p>Best of luck. If you come near Geneva, drop me an email.

 

<p>-Bill

[allan_curson]

Patrick,

I have a Canon 10D that I have used extensively for about six months now to shoot weddings and some commercial work. What I've discovered is that you have to spend much more time working with the images in photoshop editing, adjusting contrast, color, etc., than you do when shooting film. I also find that when shooting flash with digital the exposures have to be spot on and it doesn't come even close to having the exposure latitude that film does. In short, my experience has been that digital actually creates more work for me post shoot and I have to spend much more time working with the images to get the same results that I got with film, with considerably less effort. My advice, don't sell your film cameras certainly not your Leicas. I still have mine and appreciate them more every time I use them now. In fact, I'm ready to sell the digital equipment. Allan Curson (Ft. Lauderdale)

[jackflesher]

"I guess the final straw on this for me is that having this trip recorded on film would have some advantages. After the trip, you can quickly proof the photos. "

 

Bill: Don't go here... When I travel with digital, I have most of my images "proofed" before I get home -- in fact I have "pre-proofed" many of them at the time of exposure ;)

 

Jack