[MikeD]

So, should I cling to using film, start trying to develop it in basements myself and scanning it for display and/or printing? (as well as possibly doing traditional silver-based prints from the original negs when I’m back in civilization?) I’d get to keep shooting medium format and 35mm (and maybe even large format), but I’d need to keep obtaining film and chemistry (could be dicey given my international lifestyle) and finding ways to dispose of it all…and get an expensive scanner to cover larger-than-35mm negs. And I'd have to spend the large amount of time necessary for the processing. On the plus side, I just love 6x6 and understand b/w zone system kind of photography (and older historical processes) a lot better than I’ll EVER understand what’s going on with digital photos beneath the surface of it all.

Or should I just accept the future and do pure digital? That Leica M8 is calling to me. Unfortunately, I think it’s the only high-end digi I’d want, because I just don’t like SLRs as much as rangefinders (The Mamiya 6 was the coolest camera ever made&#8230, and that price tag is a doozy, even if I use classic old M lenses (my preference) instead of the latest models. Plus, digital gives me color capability without having to mail film back to the US for processing.

I guess I answered my own question…but I just have something against being all digital and I don’t know why. Anyone else holding on to the past??

 

[binary visions]

On the plus side, I just love 6x6 and understand b/w zone system kind of photography (and older historical processes) a lot better than I’ll EVER understand what’s going on with digital photos beneath the surface of it all.

Digital photos aren't that complex, but you realize that the zone system works equally well when exposing and processing digital photos? Most photography techniques are applicable to digital.

Or should I just accept the future and do pure digital?

Maybe. You can't get medium or large format without spending tens of thousands, though, so maybe holding onto your 6x6 equipment would be good for the occasional shoot.

I guess I answered my own question…but I just have something against being all digital and I don’t know why. Anyone else holding on to the past??

No.

I jumped to digital as soon as I could look through an EVF and see a reasonably high resolution picture. That was a couple years into mainstream digital cameras. I'm sure that being a computer junkie made it easier, though.

I can see sticking with analog for medium to large format... I really have a tough time figuring out why anyone would stick with film for 35mm, though, except for two basic reasons: cost (you already have the film stuff), or if you actually like the (what I consider to be) tedious chemical development process. Cost levels off pretty quick when you look at the expense of film and development, though. Of course, the M8 is in a different league in this case...

 

[MikeD]

I realize that metering is metering, and I work fine with digital cameras. My issues with digital are more on the technical/post-processing end--file types, numbers of bits, compression-whatzamahoozies...computer stuff....than on the camera end.

 

[binary visions]

I don't know that it's entirely necessary to get mired down in the technical details if you don't wish to.

Shoot raw, export to jpg after editing. The rest just kind of falls into place...

 

[MikeD]

Yeah, I guess it's just all the techy stuff I've been reading about different scanners and photo editors and image sensors that's been on the brain. I can do a split-filtration B/w print on VC paper without breaking a sweat, but I dunno what a .dng is or why it's so good...or what 8 bits gets me, practically, vs. 16...

 

[narlus]

Maybe. You can't get medium or large format without spending tens of thousands, though, so maybe holding onto your 6x6 equipment would be good for the occasional shoot.

the new 5D's resolution (21mp) definitely encroaches on MF territory for far less $. what was the highest resolution Hassy or Phase One or Leaf back 3-4 years ago? probably not much more than that.

 

[MikeD]

I'm really, really close to getting a used M8.

 

[binary visions]

the new 5D's resolution (21mp) definitely encroaches on MF territory for far less $. what was the highest resolution Hassy or Phase One or Leaf back 3-4 years ago? probably not much more than that.

Resolution isn't the only important factor in MF.

 

[narlus]

ok you got me. i didn't mention DoF.

nor the slowness and many less (and more expensive) options for MF lenses.

 

[binary visions]

The full-frame junkie doesn't think that two and a half times more area on the sensor might make a difference?

 

[narlus]

if you want 'that look' well yeah, there's no getting around physics. but there's inherent loss of flexibility and additional costs involved, and in skilled hands i'd bet that the differences in a finished print wouldn't be too obvious, esp to the untrained eye. obviously a lot depends on what sort of image you are shooting.

oh, and crop bodies are for girls.

 

[MikeD]

So I did some rudimentary math and figured the cost and effort of sticking with film was gonna be HIGH over a few years, leading me to do much less photography than I would otherwise...then went and found a nice used Leica M8 and two older lenses.

Painful, and I'm no dedicated Leica fan-boy, but they're the only game in town if you want a digi rangefinder camera.

 

[Silver]

How much did that used piece of dentist lust cost ya?

 

[MikeD]

Enough. Alas, I'm not a Leica guy per se, not being a dentist or Cartier-Bresson, but they are unfortunately the only game in town if you want a digital rangefinder camera. Epson made a wierdo discontinued model which they may bring back (or sell off old stock of with minor mods...) but I'm not gonna invest in something like that, especially because it wasn't that cheap itself. I doubt Epson will be supporting their wierdo one-off very well or for very long.

If I was doing film, I'd be using the Voigtlander Bessa series fo' shizzle. (Except for the M3, which I got as a gift, of course...)

 

[Silver]

You didn't answer the question.

Take a look at your fancy Rolex, count 10 seconds to calm yourself down, and let the cat out of the bag...

 

[MikeD]

I said "enough." That answers the question...

And I don't wear a Rolex. I wear a MkII Vantage. It's styled on a Rolex Explorer, tho.

Ed: Ok, $2700. KEH camera brokers is awesome, btw, and the best general source for used gear I've found out there. Prices are a little higher, but you get fantastic service and support. For oddball and fun stuff, I've used Ebay and the wider web just fine, but for mainstream gear, especially if you need it now, shopping at KEH is a real pleasure. I once got a body from them with a metering problem, and they sent a replacement straight off with the promise that I'd return them the previous one at my leisure.

Ed II: Yes, I feel retarded having paid for it. I hope the payoff in photos is worth it.

 

[Silver]

KEH is good.

Go steal some souls with your fancy toy

 

[narlus]

The full-frame junkie doesn't think that two and a half times more area on the sensor might make a difference?

definitely unscientific but fairly interesting comparison between the 5D2 and the low-end Mamiya MF body.

http://forums.dieselstation.com/index.php?showtopic=26682

 

[MikeD]

If I end up going DSLR as a primary tool, it'll definitely be a Canon 5D.

Oddly enough, I was JUST looking at B&H photo to see how much a digi back costs for a Hassy, then you post this. I was a little weirded to see that the sensors are, in fact, quite a lot smaller than a 6x6 neg. The crop factor must be enormous, and short MF lenses are rare, heavy, and expensive...not to mention overkill for covering a smaller sensor...maybe you can adapt a 6x4.5 lens to work on your old 500C or whatever. Then again, the studio guys using these probably don't care--they just use their 80mm normal instead of their favorite 120mm portrait lens.

Ed: Geez, looking at the image quality, I don't much see the point...scanning a 6x6 neg retains the MF look quite a lot better IMHO.

I'm really, really hoping the Leica digi works out for me, especially out here far from the infrastructure for doing film work, but if it doesn't, I think I'm just gonna stick to b/w film (mostly 6x6, some 35mm, maybe the occasional large format image) and a crappy flatbed scanner with a film attachment to get the images on the computer. When I have the opportunity, I'll get the negs drum-scanned by a lab and get good prints made.

 

[binary visions]

definitely unscientific but fairly interesting comparison between the 5D2 and the low-end Mamiya MF body.

http://forums.dieselstation.com/index.php?showtopic=26682

The 5D2 definitely has some good resolution but I think the Mamiya kills it in every test - including the fabric resolution test that the guy suggested was a "draw." Look at the "Made In..." tag.

That said, I'd have to work with the files a bit to see how much the difference is for my uses - but pixel peeping it, there's no contest. For the price, the 5D2 is a lot of resolution, which is great... but I think you can very clearly see the advantage with the big sensor.

Mike; I don't know if I'd use a couple off-the-cuff image tests to try and judge digital MF image quality.

The price, though, is just outrageous for a hobbyist.

 

[MikeD]

I should look at it on the big LCD tv instead of this tiny tiny laptop monitor, I suppose...

 

[narlus]

well, as he pointed out:

- This test is putting the Mamiya ZD at it's greatest advantage which is low noise at ISO 50 and high dynamic range. Outside these parameters, the Mamiya ZD wouldn't stand a chance against the D-SLR. It lacks live view, it lacks even a decent LCD screen, it lacks high ISO performance, it lacks frame rate, it lacks user friendliness, it lacks advanced AF.. ..and it costs a ****ing lot more.

plus, he used a zoom vs prime. i tried to check the EXIF but weirdly both images show Mamiya as the body. ???

i think my point still stands, at least to my eyes; for certain types of large prints, there's likely minimal image difference. check a print of yours that you are happy with, and then do some 100% crop pixel peeping.

...and do you really think in that first comparison the mamiya kills the canon? the text at the lower part is softer, and there looks to be a bit of CA at the fringe, but again that's probably more lens-specific than body-specific.

 

[binary visions]

plus, he used a zoom vs prime.

Can't really draw meaningful conclusions from that, though. Generally primes are better, yeah. But many zooms now are deadly sharp - look at the vaunted Nikkor 14-24 that actually raped and pillaged eBay of its Nikon-to-Canon converters for a while. And plenty of primes aren't all that stellar. Not that it isn't likely that there's a difference, just that it's not really quantifiable - it's just a nebulous "okay, well maybe it's just because..."

i think my point still stands, at least to my eyes; for certain types of large prints, there's likely minimal image difference.

Yep, just like for certain types of large prints, a 4mp D2H does fine. It's about the specific print and the intended use and the subject matter... but this test doesn't show any of that, it just shows that pixel peeping demonstrates the Mamiya to be much better. I'd hope so, for the price!

I completely agree with your point: the 5D2 delivers giant resolution for the price. Big-print-worthy resolution. That wasn't really my point to start with, though - I was suggesting that the sensor size DOES make a noticeable difference despite the resolution similarity.

...and do you really think in that first comparison the mamiya kills the canon?

Yep, I do. The fine detail that the Mamiya pulled out was outstanding.

 

[narlus]

Yep, I do. The fine detail that the Mamiya pulled out was outstanding.

i guess my eyes are failing at the same rate as my ears.

 

[MikeD]

Well, **** KEH. In the poop shoot with a zucchini.

Assholes never sent it, never emailed me about it, and sold it to someone else.

Hell, maybe I dodged a bullet and the M8 would have sucked.

I think I'll be sticking to film. Just gotta get some chemistry.

 

[MikeD]

Looks like me and film are here to stay for a while. Got my negs and slides back from Kilimanjaro and I'm PSYCHED.

If only I had a darkroom to start printing...

I'll try to get the ol' Coolscan IV fired up on this Mac and show you what 1950s tech hath for me wrought.

 

[blue]

Well, **** KEH. In the poop shoot with a zucchini.

Assholes never sent it, never emailed me about it, and sold it to someone else.

Hell, maybe I dodged a bullet and the M8 would have sucked.

I think I'll be sticking to film. Just gotta get some chemistry.

Wow.

Maybe they were afraid of shipping to outer Botswahililand...

 

[MikeD]

Well, I have a US billing and shipping address--my employer forwards everything. But I used a home computer to order, so my IP is African (it's a US one at work), which might have raised eyebrows. I also sent a note discussing the forwarding process and asking for it to be extra-well packed for this reason...this combined with my lack of a US phone number (now cured via Skype) to go along with my address makes it somewhat understandable.

But I'm still ticked that they didn't send an inquiry email asking for some more info/explanation and just didn't send anything.

 

[narlus]

i thought you got Muzungu'd!

 

[MikeD]

First feeble attempt at scanning b/w. It's an old Nikon Coolscan IV, and doesn't like silver-grain b/w negs (or even working reliably at all, I think, but it's getting back into it after years of time off). Downloaded Vuescan which helped a lot; seems to be a software issue as much as the hard LED lighting. This neg will make a *great* gelatin-silver print, but I can't really get it to shine on the screen yet.

Southern icefield on Kibo, Mt. Kilimanjaro (Taken with my M3 and 50/1.5 summitar, apparently one of the less-good Leica lenses--I like it! Plus it's my only lens... Edit: Film was Pan-F 50 ISO)