Michael Markey
Mentor
I don`t think my work will enjoy the same care and attention as that of da Vinci`s after I`ve gone.
Eighty percent of what I shoot is fast moving and I do it for other people .
It would simply cost far too much to shoot in any other type of medium than do.
Besides which I`m happy with the modern offerings .
I really must take my two remaining film cameras for a spin this summer though and I do miss the compactness of the film M`s .
besk
Well-known
To the question: I am mostly a film shooter for archival purposes. Digital is for snap shots only. Spending a bunch of money on a digital Leica doesn't make sense for me.
I use my cell phone or a Sony Nex for snap shots.
I use my cell phone or a Sony Nex for snap shots.
Erik van Straten
Mentor
How long will that other location exist?
Michael Markey
Mentor
The archival reasoning seems to be one of the common threads in this discussion.
I understand that but I must admit that it isn`t a factor as far as I`m concerned.
I have no expectation that my photographs will live on after me.
Family and friends will keep copies no doubt but that`s up to them.
I recall that the British photographer Duffy burnt most of his negs in the eighties ?
sojournerphoto
Mentor
Indeed, one of the aspects of the ‘digital internet culture’ over the years has been about achieving permanence and ensuring a well catalogued collection.
Nothing is permanent, and trying to make our pictures live forever isn’t going to change our own reality
As to well catalogued - Winogrand left something 300,000 undeveloped or unprinted, and certainly uncatalogued, negs behind. Even St Ansel the Organised talks about stopping selling prints so he can go back to historic unprinted negs. He didn’t make 10s of 1,000s with a 10x8 I expect.
But, each to their own.
JohnGellings
Well-known
Digital color prints can be archival unlike c prints…
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Digital cameras lack the pain and suffering that comes with a film workflow. And we all know that artists must suffer for their work! For this reason (and others) I maintain a darkroom, just to remind me!
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Looking in on this thread after some time away ...
- My oldest digital camera is now a 2003 Olympus E-1. It produces superb 5Mpixel photos still. 21 years old and still going strong. I had a CLA done by Olympus about six years ago too. It continues to work and feel like new.
- I've had Leica, Nikon, Panasonic, Hasselblad, and Olympus digital cameras repaired occasionally. None have been difficult to obtain service for, and the repairs have been few. *ALL* of my film cameras (Leica, Hasselblad, Nikon, Minox, Pentax, Fuji, etc) have required repair, lubrication, and calibration, some more than once. Some have proven quite difficult to get service for.
- My photo library/archives span 62 years of photography now. I've lost to intrinsic degradation of the media and just haphazard storage over the years far far more film photographs than digital photographs; notable is that I haven't lost a single film image that I digitized (which I've been doing for 31 years). Digital prints I've made since 2005 (my first ones made with pigment inks on archival paper) look just as good as chemical process prints of similar age. There are several of this framed and hung on the walls of my condo next to chemical process prints of the same age, so they're subject to the same environmental pressures: they all look just fine.
G
- My oldest digital camera is now a 2003 Olympus E-1. It produces superb 5Mpixel photos still. 21 years old and still going strong. I had a CLA done by Olympus about six years ago too. It continues to work and feel like new.
- I've had Leica, Nikon, Panasonic, Hasselblad, and Olympus digital cameras repaired occasionally. None have been difficult to obtain service for, and the repairs have been few. *ALL* of my film cameras (Leica, Hasselblad, Nikon, Minox, Pentax, Fuji, etc) have required repair, lubrication, and calibration, some more than once. Some have proven quite difficult to get service for.
- My photo library/archives span 62 years of photography now. I've lost to intrinsic degradation of the media and just haphazard storage over the years far far more film photographs than digital photographs; notable is that I haven't lost a single film image that I digitized (which I've been doing for 31 years). Digital prints I've made since 2005 (my first ones made with pigment inks on archival paper) look just as good as chemical process prints of similar age. There are several of this framed and hung on the walls of my condo next to chemical process prints of the same age, so they're subject to the same environmental pressures: they all look just fine.
G
das
Well-known
This may be a controversial opinion, but digital Ms are just completely different cameras than film Ms. They only share a lens mount, an external body resemblance, and the optical rangefinder. Essentially, they are just a Leica shaped box built around a completely different, electronically-controlled shutter and digital sensor.
Part of a hobby for many is to use old quality tools. Leica Ms were interesting film cameras and that is where their appeal always rests with me. If I wanted a high quality mirrorless, I would just get the latest Nikon, Sony, or Canon - infinitely more versatile at a fraction of an M11 price.
Part of a hobby for many is to use old quality tools. Leica Ms were interesting film cameras and that is where their appeal always rests with me. If I wanted a high quality mirrorless, I would just get the latest Nikon, Sony, or Canon - infinitely more versatile at a fraction of an M11 price.
sojournerphoto
Mentor
I don’t think it’s controversial - it’s just an opinion after all. We all have different reasons for using rangefinders. Mine is primarily that I like manual focus and window viewfinders - which pushes me to an rf. I really liked the Fuji XP2, but it didn’t work as an rf for me with manual lenses.
Any, we should be grateful we can still use and enjoy our various choices of tool.
Lack Pain and Suffering. I'm retiring next week after 45 years working at a Research Lab, spent the 1980s working with digital imagers. Cleaning out and moving offices, work and at home- found some slides made on a "Dicomed" computer camera, from 1983. I wrote the software to correct a resistive coupling problem in the Array, and to find and correct bit errors introduced by the data acquisition system. That was fun, and they paid me $50K a year back then to do it. I was in my Twenties. I still write an occasional piece of Fortran for my Leica M8, M9, and M Monochrom. Because it is fun, and always a constant challenge. Don't get paid for that code, but still get paid to write code. Even after next week.
I'm going to go with a Nikon Zf with the 40mm F2 lens for a retirement present, and buying some classic Zeiss and Jupiter lenses. I looked at the M11 at Popflash, "renewed" at a really good price- but passing on it. I just do not like the fact that it uses the main array for metering. So- it's a mirrorless camera with a built in rangefinder. The camera at Popflash cost less than my M Monochrom did 10 years ago, and about 1/4th the pay-out for unused leave. If it had a real meter in it, I'd get it. It does not, pass. The Nikon Zf- classic controls, uses almost all of my lenses, and a lot less money. If my M9 died: I'll be looking for another M9 as a replacement. after all, I have all the code written for it.
I'm going to go with a Nikon Zf with the 40mm F2 lens for a retirement present, and buying some classic Zeiss and Jupiter lenses. I looked at the M11 at Popflash, "renewed" at a really good price- but passing on it. I just do not like the fact that it uses the main array for metering. So- it's a mirrorless camera with a built in rangefinder. The camera at Popflash cost less than my M Monochrom did 10 years ago, and about 1/4th the pay-out for unused leave. If it had a real meter in it, I'd get it. It does not, pass. The Nikon Zf- classic controls, uses almost all of my lenses, and a lot less money. If my M9 died: I'll be looking for another M9 as a replacement. after all, I have all the code written for it.
nightlight
trying...
Happy Retirement Brian!
sojournerphoto
Mentor
Have an enjoyably busy retirement Brian! No festering allowed.
Your commentary on code made me think of some work we’re doing at the moment - we find it far more effective to get our technical people to code than to ask pure coders to build technical stuff - you sound like your the former and the code is to serve a purpose?
And a question, if I may. Why are you against metering off the main sensor and would prefer separate metering? Is it simply the need to close the shutter and reset the array before exposure or is there more too it? Heat? Something else?
Cheers
Mike
Godfrey
somewhat colored
What makes any of those cameras "infinitely more versatile"? Non of the latest Nikon, Sony, or Canon cameras can be focused with a rangefinder using classic Leica screw or bayonet mount lenses .. And I can't think of many other things they can do that the Leica M cannot.
I've had all of them over the years. And I chose the M10-M and M10-R to complement the M4-2 that I've had for a long time. I've done everything I do photographically with all of them, but I can't fit a teensy little 24mm lens like the MS Optics Aporia 24mm f/2 on them, stick it into my jacket pocket, and focus it with the rangefinder like I can with the M10s with any of the others. Other than cost a lot less, of course.
Picket Fence at Don Court - Santa Clara 2023
Leica M10 Monochrom + MS Optics Aporia 24mm f/2
ISO 160 @ f/5.6 @ 1/1500
G
Michael Markey
Mentor
I don`t think that is controversial . I have my 246 sitting on my desk next to my BPM4 and apart from the similarities you`ve mentioned they look and feel like two different cameras . The M4 is ,at least to me, a more elegant piece of kit. I guess I`ve just come to accept that because I like the 246 files .
das
Well-known
What makes any of those cameras "infinitely more versatile"? Non of the latest Nikon, Sony, or Canon cameras can be focused with a rangefinder using classic Leica screw or bayonet mount lenses .. And I can't think of many other things they can do that the Leica M cannot.
I've had all of them over the years. And I chose the M10-M and M10-R to complement the M4-2 that I've had for a long time. I've done everything I do photographically with all of them, but I can't fit a teensy little 24mm lens like the MS Optics Aporia 24mm f/2 on them, stick it into my jacket pocket, and focus it with the rangefinder like I can with the M10s with any of the others. Other than cost a lot less, of course.
Picket Fence at Don Court - Santa Clara 2023
Leica M10 Monochrom + MS Optics Aporia 24mm f/2
ISO 160 @ f/5.6 @ 1/1500
G
I mean, they can autofocus their own lenses and manually focus every other lens ever made for any legacy system, including all Leica M, M39, and R lenses, with focus assist. There are autofocus adapters for legacy lenses. OEM mirrorless prime lenses these days are among the best 35mm-equivalent lenses ever made by Nikon, Canon, etc.. They can do decent video. They have higher burst modes, higher usable isos (I believe), multiple metering modes, multiple exposure modes, etc etc etc. But, yes, they don't use Leica's 1950s optical rangefinder system, and they often cannot fit in a pocket.
Most of my code these days, and the last 30 years, has been for embedded systems. The last place where execution speed and efficiency really counts for much. "Computer Engineer", design and have the hardware built around the code.
M11: Rangefinders are known for low-latency taking the image when the release is tripped. Metering off the main array increases latency. I've not seen numbers published. It would be interesting to have a version of firmware for the M11 that is meterless-manual exposure only. Have an "M4" mode. Then compare latency numbers and any change in sensor noise level. Sensor noise is affected by temperature of the array. Not sure how much current is used and heat produced using Metering and Liveview. The kind of questions to ask when doing a trade-off study, dedicated meter vs using the array. In 1984- we had a Two-Color scanning IR sensor built, 15-bit A/D convertors. Mid-Wave and Long-Wave. The Data Acquisition System was built by a contractor, came back with 9 bits of noise. The redesign cost $1M, learned a lot about digital noise on that project.
Freakscene
Obscure member
The M11 cameras have noticeably more latency than other digital Ms - comparable to using live view with an M240 or M10 series camera. Even using the rangefinder the digital Ms have a lot more latency than the film Ms. It’s one of my chief frustrations about the system. A lot of mirrorless cameras can focus and shoot faster than the M11 can shoot. It’s an area for improvement, were I someone who had anything to do with designing the M cameras (I am not).
Marty
sojournerphoto
Mentor
This is pretty critical from my perspective. The S1r doesn't ever feel slow when I'm using manual focus lenses. With af lenses in low light, I notice the time taken for af, even though I'm sure it's faster than me - but I've always focused before I want to release the shutter...
Thanks, Brian and Marty
sojournerphoto
Mentor
M4 mode could also start with the shutter closed. One less operation to deal with.
The bit depth is interesting. The Sony sensor that, I presume, the M11 uses can read out in 16 bit. Fuji uses this for low iso in the GFX 100 series cameras, which use the big version of the sensor. Whether it's worthwhile is, of course, another question - I'm not sure whether SNR is sufficient to make any use of the last two bits.