View Full Version : M8 or Zeiss Ikon?
Hi was considering a used m8 since a zeiss ikon and a scanner cost just as much.
I am still learning so digital is cheaper.
But the question is how accurate the M8? effective baseline?
and how much a problem is the frameline? 8.2 is out of my reach
Juan Valdenebro
11-04-2009, 06:10
My opinion is that with film you learn more, because you don't think every click is for free.
And with slide film, even if you shoot less, you learn more because there's no second (printing) process to change your originals. You also HAVE originals. You can check them as many times as you want: you'll see you learn more then... Like listening to good music, you can't get it all the first time...
Apart, if you insist and you want a digital camera, an M8 is not what you need for learning... Get a Nikon D40 and the new 35 1.8, but you'd better forget it and go film.
Cheers,
Juan
My opinion is that with film you learn more, because you don't think every click is for free.
And with slide film, even if you shoot less, you learn more because there's no second (printing) process to change your originals. You also HAVE originals. You can check them as many times as you want: you'll see you learn more then... Like listening to good music, you can't get it all the first time...
Apart, if you insist and you want a digital camera, an M8 is not what you need for learning... Get a Nikon D40 and the new 35 1.8, but you'd better forget it and go film.
Cheers,
Juan
I think I have to disagree here. The learning curve with digital is far faster beacause you can see what your settings do for each shot. You can try, fail, try again and succeed all the time. With film, the time between trying and lesson learned is too long to get the same impact.
Juan Valdenebro
11-04-2009, 06:45
I think I have to disagree here. The learning curve with digital is far faster beacause you can see what your settings do for each shot. You can try, fail, try again and succeed all the time. With film, the time between trying and lesson learned is too long to get the same impact.
That, precisely, is the trap.
Cheers,
Juan
Juan Valdenebro
11-04-2009, 06:53
Think of it this way: you want to learn 36 completely different things, you shoot a roll of slide film and pick it up the next day. From that day on, you can check and really learn, without depending on printing, monitor calibration or ridiculous and tiny camera screens.
With digital you shoot, delete, and try again, as you said. You just cannot have originals, I mean real ones, you get forever no more than representations...
I'm afraid you were not talking about learning curve really, but about shooting and trying again curve. As that curve is minimal with slide film, you learn.
Cheers,
Juan
Double Negative
11-04-2009, 07:08
Get both. Or if money is an issue, consider a Bessa or used cameras. You can use the same lenses on both, and you open up all sorts of possibilities. Have your negatives processed and scanned to save some money up front - consider a scanner later on.
Juan Valdenebro
11-04-2009, 07:35
Double Negative has both cameras and in general his advice is OK, although a bit expensive... Several thousands for GAS just before starting to learn... Apart, if the person is new to photography, the two systems at the same time may lead to some points of confusion...
Cheers,
Juan
The effective baseline and framing will not be a major obstacle anyway. You better ask yourself a question, if you want to shoot colour or B&W, in the second case digital is useless.
Back to the TO's question:
the M8's baseline is accurate enough for my 1.5/50 Nokton.
Frameline (in)accuracy has not bothered me, yet.
Cheers,
Uwe
... You better ask yourself a question, if you want to shoot colour or B&W, in the second case digital is useless.
Why?
Cheers,
Uwe
Think of it this way: you want to learn 36 completely different things, you shoot a roll of slide film and pick it up the next day. From that day on, you can check and really learn, without depending on printing, monitor calibration or ridiculous and tiny camera screens.
With digital you shoot, delete, and try again, as you said. You just cannot have originals, I mean real ones, you get forever no more than representations...
I'm afraid you were not talking about learning curve really, but about shooting and trying again curve. As that curve is minimal with slide film, you learn.
Cheers,
Juan
I just plainly disagree. I have been the leader of a student photoclub and a board member for quite some time, and I've seen several people trying both ways into photography. The playfulness and the ability to learn on the spot makes digital a far better tool to learn the intricacies of aperture, iso, shutterspeed and other features. The religious "I love film and digital is just representation, not originals"-speech is not really my cup of tea. A picture is a picture, wether or not you record it on glass plates, film or digital sensors and memory cards, the distinction between analogue and digital is artificial imo.
With a digital camera, you can see how light works right away, you don't have to try to remember how a scene looked, how you visualized it and how it actually turned out, weeks or months later. You can take a picture, look at it, take a new picture with other settings, and realize how those changes made the picture look.
Juan Valdenebro
11-04-2009, 07:47
Why?
Cheers,
Uwe
Some B&W shooters prefer the best final output quality.
Even though in color there's a difference too, black and white digital printing is a real shame.
Cheers,
Juan
Juan Valdenebro
11-04-2009, 07:57
I just plainly disagree. I have been the leader of a student photoclub and a board member for quite some time, and I've seen several people trying both ways into photography. The playfulness and the ability to learn on the spot makes digital a far better tool to learn the intricacies of aperture, iso, shutterspeed and other features. The religious "I love film and digital is just representation, not originals"-speech is not really my cup of tea. A picture is a picture, wether or not you record it on glass plates, film or digital sensors and memory cards, the distinction between analogue and digital is artificial imo.
With a digital camera, you can see how light works right away, you don't have to try to remember how a scene looked, how you visualized it and how it actually turned out, weeks or months later. You can take a picture, look at it, take a new picture with other settings, and realize how those changes made the picture look.
I have been a photographer shooting with Nikon and developing since I was 12. I have a seven year career in photography and specialized in fashion, architecture and interiors, and product. I work professionally in several fields with all formats of my own, including LF, MF, 35mm and digital. I have also been a photography teacher. Understanding aperture and those things takes a few minutes. Understanding light, composition, tonal range, etc, is a lot more important. Digital photography is making a lot of bad shooters, and that is not precisely a problem for film-learned shooters.
You have your opinion, OK.
Cheers,
Juan
I have been a photographer shooting with Nikon and developing since I was 12. I have a seven year career in photography and specialized in fashion, architecture and interiors, and product. I work professionally in several fields with all formats of my own, including LF, MF, 35mm and digital. I have also been a photography teacher. Understanding aperture and those things takes a few minutes. Understanding light, composition, tonal range, etc, is a lot more important. Digital photography is making a lot of bad shooters, and that is not precisely a problem for film-learned shooters.
You have your opinion, OK.
Cheers,
Juan
No, just no. Anyone that truly and really wants to learn anything is going to learn it no matter what system they choose to start with. Starting with film is not going to force someone to learn anything. The option is there, but they must take the step on their own. I feel that starting out with digital will allow people to be less discouraged and give them the possible encouragement to learn more, but once again, they must take that step on their own. The medium is not going to force them to do a darn thing.
This backwards stubborn idea of film being the only way to learn is so old and tiresome.
There were plenty of horrible film shooters back in the film day, and there are plenty of horrible digital shooters now. Hell many of each frequent these very boards. Simply put no matter the medium if somebody is set on mastering their craft and tecnique they are going to.
Edit: Some of the best shooters on this board are from the Digital Generation and are producing images leaps and bounds beyond the "technical engineery type" that hold onto this absurd film ideal and lack the ability to create breathtaking images. But by God that shot of a lightpost sure does have a good tonal range doesn't it!!?
Please.
@Bene: Why M8? There are a lot cheaper tools for learning. You have too much money and don't know where to spend to?
@Juan & Ulrikft: Here's not for another war of 'to film or not to film', right? The idea of using film just like listening the music is very interesting. I agreed that we need time (lot of time) and works to LOVE film.
Some B&W shooters prefer the best final output quality.
Even though in color there's a difference too, black and white digital printing is a real shame.
Cheers,
JuanHmmm... In 2005, maybe, nowadays - it is a very debatable argument.
Juan Valdenebro
11-04-2009, 08:52
No, just no. Anyone that truly and really wants to learn anything is going to learn it no matter what system they choose to start with. Starting with film is not going to force someone to learn anything. The option is there, but they must take the step on their own. I feel that starting out with digital will allow people to be less discouraged and give them the possible encouragement to learn more, but once again, they must take that step on their own. The medium is not going to force them to do a darn thing.
This backwards stubborn idea of film being the only way to learn is so old and tiresome.
There were plenty of horrible film shooters back in the film day, and there are plenty of horrible digital shooters now. Hell many of each frequent these very boards. Simply put no matter the medium if somebody is set on mastering their craft and tecnique they are going to.
Edit: Some of the best shooters on this board are from the Digital Generation and are producing images leaps and bounds beyond the "technical engineery type" that hold onto this absurd film ideal and lack the ability to create breathtaking images. But by God that shot of a lightpost sure does have a good tonal range doesn't it!!?
Please.
I'll just ask you for one thing, please: don't write on a public place like this, that I have said things I haven't. I never said digital cameras "lack the ability to create breathtaking images"... That's your little personal story and you are the only one who needed to take that out from inside your personal worries. I respect your opinion and everyone's, but first read again what I said, or learn to read,,, Looks like you learned to read, well... digitally. :)
Cheers,
Juan
With digital you shoot, delete, and try again, as you said.
Why do you do that? I don't. I prefer to think first, then shoot. Just because there's an LCD on the camera, you don't HAVE to use it. On the other hand, I'd never been the photographer I am today if I'd started out with film.
Chimping with an M8 is just an awful pain, since it takes several seconds for writing to the card and several more seconds to zoom in for confirming sharpness or such. So it forces you to use it like it was loaded with film, but you still have the possibility to confirm critical shots. But you'll have to wait quite a while.
Juan Valdenebro
11-04-2009, 09:06
Why do you do that? I don't. I prefer to think first, then shoot. Just because there's an LCD on the camera, you don't HAVE to use it. On the other hand, I'd never been the photographer I am today if I'd started out with film.
Chimping with an M8 is just an awful pain, since it takes several seconds for writing to the card and several more seconds to zoom in for confirming sharpness or such. So it forces you to use it like it was loaded with film, but you still have the possibility to confirm critical shots. But you'll have to wait quite a while.
Another one,,, I don't do that, of course. I wrote "you..." That doesn't mean "myself"... But really, this discussion won't go on and on, at least from me... Bye :p
Some B&W shooters prefer the best final output quality.
Even though in color there's a difference too, black and white digital printing is a real shame.
Cheers,
Juan
Proof, please.
Cheers,
Uwe
Another one,,, I don't do that, of course. I wrote "you..." That doesn't mean "myself"... But really, this discussion won't go on and on, at least from me... Bye :p
That's what I meant. If you don't, why do you think everyone else would? :rolleyes:
Proof, please.
Cheers,
Uwe
Probably impossible since it was all about prints.
I'll just ask you for one thing, please: don't write on a public place like this, that I have said things I haven't. I never said digital cameras "lack the ability to create breathtaking images"... That's your little personal story and you are the only one who needed to take that out from inside your personal worries. I respect your opinion and everyone's, but first read again what I said, or learn to read,,, Looks like you learned to read, well... digitally. :)
Cheers,
Juan
Juan,
Read again what I wrote as I was not referring to cameras (digital or film) I was referencing people. :-) And in no way implied or mentioned you having said anything of the sort.
I believe digital and film are both equally capable mediums. If my final comment was in someway hard to decipher I apologize. I guess I learned to "write" digitally as well ;-)
Roger Hicks
11-04-2009, 13:19
Dear Juan,
I'd agree about the supremacy of film (still) for B+W, but the more I learn about digital manipulation, the less worse my digital conversions are. I'm prepared to believe that the very, very best B+W conversions from colour are as good as good average wet prints by someone with a modest degree of experience.
That's pretty damn' equivocal, I know. I use M8/M8.2 for colour and MP/M4-P/M2 for mono so you can see where my prejudices lie!
Cheers,
R.
Juan Valdenebro
11-04-2009, 13:28
On that we agree, Roger.
Yet I'm waiting for digital printers to become 900 dpi and use real silver paper. That day they'll be...closer! (Oh, no! These discussions would be longer then!)
Cheers,
Juan
Not necessary a "learner" but a AE user =). have a sony 350 (Ir converted) Minolta s7ii
I fell in love with RFF because it is just smaller and lighter. No back pains with walking for 3 hrs to get a shot =) M8 will be more useful i suppose and versatile. M8 will be in between where i can start to learn the full manual controls.
Your experience is yours and likely as you planned it to be. What works best for others may be completely different. I started shooting in 1960 and developed my first film in 1965. I worked 33 years as a daily news photographer, the last several years alongside some who hadn't been born when I started my career.
A few of those next gen shooters have never shot film. But they are skilled and competent photo journalists. Visualization can be learned with a digital camera, a film camera or even a pin hole camera. If one desires to learn photography the important consideration is to understand what is being done and what it will accomplish. Results can be evaluated from a negative, a chrome or a digital file.
One thing I don't advocate for any beginner is anything automated. Turn off the auto exposure, the auto focus and, if digital, the auto levels for post processing. Manual control of any or all processes will force a beginner to contemplate what is happening and why. Unless one desires an advanced understanding of exposure such as with the Zone System, visualization can be accomplished with other than film. If one really wants to learn film, self-processing it is just as important as shooting it. And careful note taking to remember / associate results with plans and processes as there is no exif data for a negative.
I have been a photographer shooting with Nikon and developing since I was 12. I have a seven year career in photography and specialized in fashion, architecture and interiors, and product. I work professionally in several fields with all formats of my own, including LF, MF, 35mm and digital. I have also been a photography teacher. Understanding aperture and those things takes a few minutes. Understanding light, composition, tonal range, etc, is a lot more important. Digital photography is making a lot of bad shooters, and that is not precisely a problem for film-learned shooters.
You have your opinion, OK.
Cheers,
Juan
Use digital for the basics. You don't need a high price camera for this step. Use film for the discipline. I've noticed that many 'professional' digital sorts didn't own a camera one-year ago. The shoot and pray can result in some good photos after understanding the basics, but is it the camera that is making the photos? Disciplined shooting results in the photographer making the images per a pre-conceived idea. Film can take you to that second step. I know, I lost the discipline when I went all digital. I know that these are exaggerations, but the point is valid.
I like to think that my digital BW-conversions are quite good, most people seem to think so, even old film die-hards. and printed on good baryta paper on my epson 3800... well, it looks great :)
When it comes to learning light, lines, contrast... everything that makes a great photo great, I still think that digital captures makes this easier and makes the learning curve steeper. I guess opinions will differ of course.
Oh, and an example of digital work I like (Besides my site, of course.. ;) ) is this:
http://www.digital-monochrome.co.uk
Thank you for all the responses and I truely have a better opinion of what camera to get. The fact is that M8 is a great camera with flaws compared to m9 but the blood of leica is in m8. And the truth is like most leica/RF/ Manual focus slr users. 75-90 % is the user's skill / "eye" not the camera. Given my learning style digital proves more economical and better as long as I stop using AE =) which I do =). Cost of learning to shoot from the hip with film is ouch. M8 might be a D700 price but for size and optics and less back pain I think m8 is better for me. I plan to backpack taiwan next . film is not be the best medium. Thank you and I guess the film or digital means of learning depends on personality (I am so ADD =)) and dicipline to learn the craft .With film i tend to be careful takeing safer roots like AE. Digital let me take shots that are more iffy. I know there is a difference between trigger happy and aventurous without penalty. A reason I not getting a PNS like a g11/ s90 / ricoh is the lack of manual focus which i love. So a leica digital seems to be the best bet. Dslr are too big cos i shoot in low light. 3 primes and one dslr is too much.
Hope others look at film or digital will find my opinion helpful.
An anology i came up is that shooting film is like playing golf =) digital is like going to the arcade. But you can choose to play and a golf game once in a while =)
ZlatkoBatistich
11-05-2009, 00:39
I like to think that my digital BW-conversions are quite good, most people seem to think so, even old film die-hards. and printed on good baryta paper on my epson 3800... well, it looks great :)
When it comes to learning light, lines, contrast... everything that makes a great photo great, I still think that digital captures makes this easier and makes the learning curve steeper. I guess opinions will differ of course.
I agree on both counts. I've made stunning black & white prints with the Epson 3800 and beautiful baryta papers. There is a multitude of ways of creating black & whites in Photoshop and Lightroom, and they are infinitely variable. Digital is delightful for black & white. And digital makes learning much, much easier.
Roger Hicks
11-05-2009, 01:17
Your experience is yours and likely as you planned it to be. What works best for others may be completely different. I started shooting in 1960 and developed my first film in 1965. I worked 33 years as a daily news photographer, the last several years alongside some who hadn't been born when I started my career.
A few of those next gen shooters have never shot film. But they are skilled and competent photo journalists. Visualization can be learned with a digital camera, a film camera or even a pin hole camera. If one desires to learn photography the important consideration is to understand what is being done and what it will accomplish. Results can be evaluated from a negative, a chrome or a digital file.
One thing I don't advocate for any beginner is anything automated. Turn off the auto exposure, the auto focus and, if digital, the auto levels for post processing. Manual control of any or all processes will force a beginner to contemplate what is happening and why. Unless one desires an advanced understanding of exposure such as with the Zone System, visualization can be accomplished with other than film. If one really wants to learn film, self-processing it is just as important as shooting it. And careful note taking to remember / associate results with plans and processes as there is no exif data for a negative.
Highlighted portion: I used to believe that, but now I'm not so sure. The alternative view is that you can take a lot more good pictures with automation, as a beginner, and that the failures will spur you to learn how to take the control you need. If you're fighting with manual controls at first, you'll get fewer good pictures and less in the way of encouraging feedback.
It probably depends very much on the kind of person you are. Some will learn better and faster with automation; some will learn better and faster with manual. Likewise for film and digital. The fact that we had to learn with film and manual -- I set up my first darkroom in 1966 -- shouldn't make us think that it is necessarily the best bet today.
Cheers,
R.
jsrockit
11-06-2009, 05:21
Do you want digital or do you want to use film... it is as easy as that no?
Just reading the thread here i thought I might chime in as a beginner to photography. I used to use film when I was a kid using my Dad's old Voigtlander RF and I am happy to have digital now to learn with. I loved the old manual camera and the RF but digital, however when I got back into photography (with a Micro 4/3rd's Pany G1) I wanted to learn on digital for the following reasons:
- I find that I will try different settings to understand the change in the exposure while I am in the field shooting. Its great IMO to take a photo and be able to view the RGB histogram in almost real time. I get to see right away the impact of the change I made. Also, regarding composition its nice to be able to see if I captured what I invisioned.
- I think digital is cheaper than film (film processing, scanner, etc.). However, I really really REALLY want a digital RF camera but I think even the RD1 is too overpriced. If they made a digital RF for $650 or so I would buy it.
- In regards to the automation vs manual comments above. I personally like the automation for learning because it allows me to pick one aspect of the process at a time to work on and improve. For instance, starting with composition and exposure and not worrying about focus. Then work on focus. Set WB to auto at first, etc etc. Learn one step at a time in a logical manner and then overall I think your skills can get better as a whole.
That being said one thing I really dont like about digital is all the electronic controls. I like things simple so the RD1 for example seems to be the best digital RF ergonomicly speaking. Maybe even better than the M8/9. However, I my current plan is to get sime nice legacy glass (Canon FD lenses first then CV in the future) for my M4/3's G1. Really looking forward to the apeture ring and manual focus. Then in the future if they come out with a nicely priced digital M type camera I may have some lenses to add to it (or maybe buy a used M8/9). we shall see.
Anyway, in my opinion pick the option that will get you out there takin pictures... if its film great but for me I take a ton more pictures and try different things that I think have made me better than if I had film.
KD
wgerrard
11-06-2009, 10:06
One thing not really mentioned in this, or other similar discussions, is the personality of the person trying to learn. One person might learn more easily given the fast response time of digital, while another might respond best to the more studied pace of film.
In either case, however, not much learning is going to happen unless the student pays attention to details and has access to some decent guidance, either from a teacher, a book or an online tutorial.
For example, looking at a badly overexposed image on the back of a digital or in a strip of negatives won't teach anyone anything unless they already know the basics of aperture, etc., and recognize the overexposure for what it is. If they then adjust their exposure, get a good image, and link all that with an accurate memory of the conditions in which they are shooting, they might learn something they can apply the next time they shoot in similar conditions.
On the other hand, if they just start playing with the controls of a digital until the LCD produces something they like, they won't learn anything. Ditto for film, except they'll learn nothing more slowly.
If someone uses film, and if they can get it processed while their short-term memory is still fresh, the same kind of process goes on. Psychologically, film can inspire you to take more care with each shot. Doesn't have to, but it can. And, that might produce better, faster learning for some people.
However, you aren't going to learn much of anything if you put the camera on full automatic and click away. You'll likely get pretty good pictures most of the time, but that's about it. In that regard, it isn't so much an issue of film or digital, as it is an issue of taking control of the camera.
These days, anyone really serious about photographer ought to be conversant with both film and digital, and with manual and automatic cameras, regardless of personal preference. They're all in the toolkit.
Get the M8.
Cameras do not make good or bad shooters! You know what does? Right.
sojournerphoto
11-06-2009, 10:58
There are more committed photographers now so I suspect that digital is easier to learn.
I also think that us old hands sometimes have a hard time dealing with the fact that some young whippersnapper with some vision and iedas can create really good work using an automated digital camera and photoshop. there are even people making very good livings out of art photography who don't seem to have a clue about the technical stuff.
Choose your poison and enjoy.
If you want to learn, look at what you've made and, sometimes, at ther peoples work too.
Mike
Mike,
I agree with you that "looking at other people's work" is important as well. As mentioned above I am definately a novice and something I found very useful that helped me imrpove was to look at other photos and analyze them.
I grab the Sunday newspaper and flip to photos I like and draw a 9 square grid on the photo and look at the composition. Also, I try to estimate the type of shutter speed and apeture setting that might have been used to capture the shot. Finally, I look at the overall picture and kind of write down why I think the photo caught my eye. Its kind of fun and passes the time with the wife over a cup of coffee while she does the weekly Soduko. Anyway, the point is that looking at photos in this way, for me, helped me disect and understand the variables, etc with photos that interested me. Afterward I usually find myself inspired to go out and take some pics; which helps me get better. I am now starting to look at some of my photos for more than just a passing glance so for me thats great.
Cheers
KD
Carterofmars
11-06-2009, 22:22
Here is my opinion. When shooting digital I'm thinking less; all the time. Since I've been shooting film again, there is defiantly more aforethought. I'm thinking more about light, Speed, and aperture- on every shot. Again, it's now becoming second nature, deciding how to prepare for a pic.
This is tough. Both have very strong advantages.
I'd say alternate. Shoot film one month then Dig the next.
Best of both worlds.
fleetwoodjazz
11-06-2009, 23:25
Oh, and an example of digital work I like (Besides my site, of course.. ;) ) is this:
http://www.digital-monochrome.co.uk
Nice set of photos but it still doesn't work for me, there is something that evidently shows the "digitalness". B&W film looks much better, even on the computer screen, let alone prints.
On the other hand, I also prefer film colour, especially slide. Film colour looks just more vibrant, more real to my taste. I quited digital because I don't like post processing and digital RAWs look way too plastic.
Anyway, just my opinion of course.
sojournerphoto
11-07-2009, 00:56
Here is my opinion. When shooting digital I'm thinking less; all the time. Since I've been shooting film again, there is defiantly more aforethought. I'm thinking more about light, Speed, and aperture- on every shot. Again, it's now becoming second nature, deciding how to prepare for a pic.
This is tough. Both have very strong advantages.
I'd say alternate. Shoot film one month then Dig the next.
Best of both worlds.
I agree that shooting film can help some people think more - but that is not a film/digi discussion as much as down to individual character. You don't have to think less with digi, you just choose to. Perhaps you could put your new awareness to use in the digi domain if you wished.
If you want to learn then I'd advocate learning something well, and that likely means use it for more than a month at a time. I'm planning to post something on my blog about this in the next couple of days - the rate of new digi camera releases is not really helpful to people in that regard.
Mike
sojournerphoto
11-07-2009, 00:58
Nice set of photos but it still doesn't work for me, there is something that evidently shows the "digitalness". B&W film looks much better, even on the computer screen, let alone prints.
On the other hand, I also prefer film colour, especially slide. Film colour looks just more vibrant, more real to my taste. I quited digital because I don't like post processing and digital RAWs look way too plastic.
Anyway, just my opinion of course.
I too, generally, prefer black and white from film than digital capture, but that may be my lack of processing skills and refusal to use Silver Efex to date:)
Digital colour is actually more accurate if you take care with colour management, but of course film has been developed to be pleasing over many years. Something I really don't like is the colour I get if I have C41 lab printed in a fuji. Give me my own scans any day of the week.
Mike
noimmunity
11-07-2009, 02:02
I plan to backpack taiwan next . film is not be the best medium.
Ummm, I'd give that a second thought. I've lived and backpacked (we're talking high alpine country, right?) in Taiwan for 27 years, and you definitely have to be prepared for massive downpours and extremely wet conditions. I wouldn't suggest taking the M8 into the backcountry in Taiwan.
Good luck with your photos, and have fun in Taiwan!
Old film cameras are better to learn on, but it is not because of the film, in my opinion. It is because you have no choice but to use manual controls. Learning manual control of any camera, be it film or digital, is, in my opinion, the best way to rapidly improve as a photographer. Granted, once that rapid stage of improvement is past, it takes longer to develop a good eye, but this discussion is about learning with equipment, not learning with the eye. If a person has the discipline to put a digital camera in full manual mode and keep it there at all times, a digital camera is a just as good, if not better, tool for learning. I am a bit fuzzy on bene's level of experience, but spending 500 bucks on a D40 and a 35mm f1.8, as previously mentioned, would be a good starting place IF bene can manage to keep it on full manual all the time, even manual ISO. I would think that, starting out, auto white balance would be ok though. The important thing is getting an intuitive grasp of apertures, shutter speeds, isos, the relationships between them, as well as things like reading light meters, manual focus, etc. Bene, good pictures can be made with nearly any camera, and bad pictures can be made with any camera, bar none. Before you go shelling out significant loot on an m camera and m lenses, regardless of manufacturer, pick up something like a d40, or a pentax k1000, or a fixed lens rangefinder. Something with a reasonably fast normal prime lens, like 35mm on a crop sensor digital, or something between 35mm and 50 mm on a film camera. Until you can get the best out of a camera like that, you won't be getting your money's worth out of an M8 or ZI.
As to digital black and white, it is making leaps and bounds. All of the black and white on the first 8 or so pages of my flickr page linked in my sig is digital, processed with silver efex pro. I am thrilled with the results. I have a couple issues with some stairstepping in a few of them, but that is because aperture 2 doesn't play nicely with compressed .nef raw files.
Arguments for film can certainly still be made, and they are still certainly quite valid, but the arguments are getting steadily weaker. On the other hand, I think the M8 is a pretty lousy camera. My answer to the question of M8 vs. ZI is neither. Get something more basic and inexpensive, keep it in full manual for every shot every day for a couple years, and then score an M9 when you have saved up the money, if you feel you still want an M camera.
Roger Warren
11-07-2009, 02:54
Skip out on the Zeiss and get an M6ttl. You will not regret having a superior machine.
sojournerphoto
11-07-2009, 03:14
Skip out on the Zeiss and get an M6ttl. You will not regret having a superior machine.
Wow! Digital vs film and Leica vs Zeiss in one thread:)
fleetwoodjazz
11-07-2009, 07:09
Digital colour is actually more accurate if you take care with colour management, but of course film has been developed to be pleasing over many years.
Ultimately it is the process and the look that should be the deciding factor. For the look, I have never use a scientific approach to taking photos and I prefer to be free with ideas or results. Obviously I don't like over doing that end up in a far in-natural results. It's true that digital is more accurate but it is also strictly true with digital that we are seeing a lot of weirdo looking photographs due to over-processing.
As for the process, one should decide on either a contemplative or a selection approach. For film you contemplate more, for digital you simply shoot and select the photos you would like to keep. Of course, you could always think before shooting your digital camera, but please agree that only a minority of us is doing that.
For the OP, it maybe a difficult choice but for me, the choice is rather obvious.
ashrafazlan
11-07-2009, 08:55
Skip out on the Zeiss and get an M6ttl. You will not regret having a superior machine.
How is it superior? From the specs i've seen the ikon seems to be better?
sojournerphoto
11-07-2009, 15:39
Ultimately it is the process and the look that should be the deciding factor. For the look, I have never use a scientific approach to taking photos and I prefer to be free with ideas or results. Obviously I don't like over doing that end up in a far in-natural results. It's true that digital is more accurate but it is also strictly true with digital that we are seeing a lot of weirdo looking photographs due to over-processing.
As for the process, one should decide on either a contemplative or a selection approach. For film you contemplate more, for digital you simply shoot and select the photos you would like to keep. Of course, you could always think before shooting your digital camera, but please agree that only a minority of us is doing that.
For the OP, it maybe a difficult choice but for me, the choice is rather obvious.
1. Oh yes, there's some wild coloured digitally originated stuff out there:) And I agree that accurate colour is not encessarily what we want. The point was simply that to say that film is more accurate is inaccurate. If you have time, patience and the necessary skills digital can be made to render colour in all sorts of ways - some even looking like your favourite film. There are other reasons to use film of course, that a perfectly valid (and I have shot more film than digital in the last year).
2. I don't shoot much more with my digital camera than with film. It helps that I've learnt that a full hard drive takes a lot of sorting out and making selectiions form large numbers of pictures is not my preferred activity.
3. The choice is individual. The key, as you said, is to think about what you're doing and look at what you've done. The latter is harder if you take hundereds of pictures in a day, whatever medium.
Mike
sojournerphoto
11-07-2009, 15:41
How is it superior? From the specs i've seen the ikon seems to be better?
It's standard bait. I tried an M6 the other week and it's a very nice camera. I could happily live with one. The viewfinder isn't as good as the Ikon's. It's just a choice and we all choose what we believe is better for us.
Mike
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.