Leica M10 Monochrom vs Kodak Tri-X 400: B&W Digital vs Film

51389717954_830b18d345_c.jpg
 
I saw this a few days ago. He didn't specify what type of digital file he used (DNG RAW, JPG, what?), level of processing if any, or make any of his own conclusions. And the small thumbnails he was showing for A/B comparisons left me scratching my head! How am I supposed to glean anything form this?

My only response was this: 'man, what a completely worthless review'!
 
I get an error message at the link.

But generally these are done by people who know neither how to process film or a digital file and do it for clicks.

Marty
 
Digital and film are too different to do a comparison. And anyway, no one, NO ONE! Needs a $8K rig to shoot a 36 exposure roll of TX. All you ‘need’ is $9 and a couple hundred dollars for a good used 35mm SLR and a garden variety 50mm lens. If you can’t take a good picture with that a kilobuck Leica just ain’t going to help.

Yes, I know ‘apples to apples’ but really folks, if you mixed and matched the digital Leica with several ‘inferior’ cameras, who is going to be able to tell the difference with the final output, a print.
 
What you can say from this comparison is that there is nothing against the TX pictures from the result. But in both digital and hybrid workflow post processing can't be ignored. I am sure that the Monochrome files give much more flexibility to tweak the results in any direction you want and make it superiour to film. Again: nothing against film but without doubt the Monochrome files are "better" if that is what you want.
 
I think that which one was better in a given shot had more to do with exposure and development than anything else. Sometimes the M10 had better shadow detail, sometimes Tri-X did.
 
Almost impossible to see it truly well.
Yet that darn Tri-X is a lot better.. and a film i no longer use!
The high MP count can be a "negative" factor in comparison.
Film in long period will cost more.. but the pleasure of seeing a tangible result!
Leica-M digital or film tend to need love and adjustments with extra costs..
My Leicas are MOST repaired! My Spotmatic, KM and K1000 never!
I prefer digital for color, better control and my lab not leave paw or foot marks on my films. Yes "big toe"... Enjoy whatever you use..
 
Scanning

Scanning

Just as important as how the film was developed is how the film was scanned. This wasn’t talked about in the first half of the video - I admit that I was too bored to watch it till the end. The contrast of the monochrome images seemed way too high compared with the Tri-x images - poor PP or is this inherent too the sensor? I’m sticking with film for now.
 
kshapero said:
Have a Nikon FM and Nikkor 50/1.8 lens with Tri-X and I am also set. Paid $155 for the setup.
Click to expand...

They used similar cameras which could use the same lens… of course you can do everything cheaper than Leica. But only Leica makes a 35mm digital monochrome camera. It was fair to also use a film M that used the same lens. That said, of course tests like these are flawed. But we also know both tools are great for photography… as is your Nikon.
 
kshapero said:
Have a Nikon FM and Nikkor 50/1.8 lens with Tri-X and I am also set. Paid $155 for the setup.
Click to expand...

... and you all complain and bemoan the fact that there are no new comparable quality film cameras on the market today.

That Nikon FM and Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 lens, new in 1978, would cost about $275 for the body and about $150 for the lens. I know because I bought them then. In today's money, call it $1150 for the body and $650 for the lens.

That's still quite a bit less than a new Leica M-A + Summicron-M 50mm—one of the last quality film cameras still in production, $8090—but the price differential is pretty much the same as it was in 1978 (about 4x more for the Leica M gear compared to the Nikon FM).

If you're not willing to buy new gear and actually generate some profit for a camera manufacturer—remember that the manufacturers make nothing from the sales of used gear—then the manufacturers go out of business.

So I'm happy you got a decent camera and lens for virtually nothing. I've done the same, many times, in recent years. But it's nothing to be proud about: it's simply a fact that this is why no one is making high quality film cameras any more.

Do you need that Leica M at the 4x price difference to make great photos? Of course not. But many felt that the qualities of the Leica M were/are worth it, which is the basis of something called the "RangeFinder Forum", eh? :rolleyes:

G

note Oh yes: as I said before, the suggested video comparison is essentially contentless. That is, without any substantive information from which to draw any conclusions at all.
 
Godfrey said:
... and you all complain and bemoan the fact that there are no new comparable quality film cameras on the market today.

That Nikon FM and Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 lens, new in 1978, would cost about $275 for the body and about $150 for the lens. I know because I bought them then. In today's money, call it $1150 for the body and $650 for the lens.

That's still quite a bit less than a new Leica M-A + Summicron-M 50mm—one of the last quality film cameras still in production, $8090—but the price differential is pretty much the same as it was in 1978 (about 4x more for the Leica M gear compared to the Nikon FM).

If you're not willing to buy new gear and actually generate some profit for a camera manufacturer—remember that the manufacturers make nothing from the sales of used gear—then the manufacturers go out of business.

So I'm happy you got a decent camera and lens for virtually nothing. I've done the same, many times, in recent years. But it's nothing to be proud about: it's simply a fact that this is why no one is making high quality film cameras any more.

Do you need that Leica M at the 4x price difference to make great photos? Of course not. But many felt that the qualities of the Leica M were/are worth it, which is the basis of something called the "RangeFinder Forum", eh? :rolleyes:

G

note Oh yes: as I said before, the suggested video comparison is essentially contentless. That is, without any substantive information from which to draw any conclusions at all.
Click to expand...


I'm not following your logic here. If what I want is a quality all metal 35mm manual focus mechanical camera and lenses (and assuming I can't or won's pay $5,000 for an MP or M-A), what new camera am I supposed to buy? How would buying, for example, a brand new D850 or Z7 encourage Nikon to make a new FM3a? Now that the F6 (which is a great camera but not really what I would want either) is gone, there is no way I can buy a new Nikon film camera to vote with my dollars and tell Nikon what I'd like them to make.
If Nikon could make and sell a new FM3a for the FM's inflation-adjusted price of $1,150, I'd buy one in a heartbeat.
I wish the manufacturers well with their sales of new cameras, but until they make something that I actually want, I'm not going to buy something I don't want to generate profits to keep them in business, in the hopes that might see fit to make something I would like in the future.
 
First, it is dead horse which become dust.
Such a meh.
Second, we have film vs digital sub forum.
Third, only if you are mentally blind, you would have idea to compare digital and so called film, BW.

So, any "new" article on this one is to be piped down the tubes. Doesn't matter how new for some M10M sensor is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top