Rangefinderforum.com

Rangefinderforum.com (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/index.php)
-   Leica General Discussion / News / Rumors (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=208)
-   -   Leica vs Leica (81 years apart) (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=168791)

shawn 06-16-2019 14:01

Leica vs Leica (81 years apart)
 
Thought this could be fun.

1932 Leica III (updated) with pre-war nickel Elmar of basically the same vintage. No serial number but it has the 7 oclock infinity position. TriX in HC110 1:63 for 9 minutes. Scanned on a Pakon.

2013ish Leica M240 with a 50mm Elmar-M 2.8 lens. Shot raw and converted to B&W at default in Lightroom.

Both shot at same aperture. All hand held so framing is slightly different. No great art, just interesting to see how they compare.































Differences in brightness could be accounted for in post.

Shawn

shawn 06-16-2019 14:01

Few more....












Ccoppola82 06-16-2019 14:08

I would be curious to see what they looked like if you matched the contrast in the M240 shots to the film. I’m partial to the film shots in these examples. Seems like much richer tonality, though the M240 is no slouch. I know I love mine!

Ko.Fe. 06-16-2019 14:10

Big job was done!
Everything, except last one, shows no significant difference. :)

shawn 06-16-2019 14:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ccoppola82 (Post 2894498)
I would be curious to see what they looked like if you matched the contrast in the M240 shots to the film. Iím partial to the film shots in these examples. Seems like much richer tonality, though the M240 is no slouch. I know I love mine!

I think that is mostly brightness really. If I boost the m240 up a little they are pretty close. That was a rabbit hole I didn't really want to go down though as there are so many different processing options. Might do a couple using a 'TriX' preset just for fun though.....

Shawn

benmacphoto 06-16-2019 14:50

Huge difference in tone/contrast gives the m240 away.
But sharpness and resolution are great on both.

Nice comparison.

shawn 06-16-2019 14:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ko.Fe. (Post 2894499)
Big job was done!
Everything, except last one, shows no significant difference. :)

Last one the old Elmar was flaring. The dock shot has a little of that too.

At that size I agree the shots are more alike than not if the differences in brightness are ignored. The old Elmar does well. When looking at higher resolution there are more differences.

For example:



That is with the TriX at 100% and the m240 at 50% view. I can't say if that is lens/film or scanner related though. The Pakon is only scanning at 6 megapixels vs 24 for the m240. I could fit it through my LS-8000 at some point to check that but I'm not really worried about it.

Shawn

shawn 06-16-2019 15:08

m240 DNG in Iridient using the monochrome RAW process. Contrast turned down.



m240 DNG in DXO Filmpack5 using TriX preset. Exposure boosted .5 and contrast turned down.



Black level is still a bit to strong.

Shawn

Huss 06-16-2019 16:42

If you compared your 1932 Leica vs a 2019 M-A... (no difference if using the same lens)

Also, couldn't you adapt the lens on the old Leica onto your digi one?

shawn 06-16-2019 16:52

Yes, the old Elmar is usable on the digital Leica as lenses went to the standard flange distance in 1932. Was more interested in what the combo of old body and old lens looked like to the newer body and lens.

Shawn

Ko.Fe. 06-16-2019 17:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by shawn (Post 2894507)
m240 DNG in Iridient using the monochrome RAW process. Contrast turned down.



m240 DNG in DXO Filmpack5 using TriX preset. Exposure boosted .5 and contrast turned down.



Black level is still a bit to strong.

Shawn

I don't think I could process film this good. Makes me want 262 :).

Steve M. 06-16-2019 17:06

This is an excellent illustration of why I could never shoot digital :)

The deck was stacked from the start though.... Tri-X shot through a vintage camera is as good as it gets. Thank you for the test. I've done these, and know how time consuming they are to put together.

shawn 06-16-2019 17:13

Thanks, one more take of that same shot. This time through DXO PhotoLab II using the ADOX CHS 100 II look along with a little bit of DXO Clearview.



Shawn

jarski 06-16-2019 19:18

nice comparison and thanks for sharing. before reaching to replies, kinda guessed half of RFF rushing to comment that shots from older camera&lens look better :)

markjwyatt 06-16-2019 20:43

In the sailboat pictures I suspected the first one was digital, because you lost some of the clouds to pure white- though this can happen in scanning also. Overall, both look great.

DanskDynamit 06-16-2019 22:33

so Leica didnt improve at all in 80 years? :D

shawn 06-17-2019 01:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by markjwyatt (Post 2894558)
In the sailboat pictures I suspected the first one was digital, because you lost some of the clouds to pure white- though this can happen in scanning also. Overall, both look great.

In all but the last pair of sailboat pictures the first shot is TriX.

Shawn

shawn 06-17-2019 01:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanskDynamit (Post 2894563)
so Leica didnt improve at all in 80 years? :D

Hard to do this in 1932....







Shawn

DanskDynamit 06-17-2019 03:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by shawn (Post 2894587)
Hard to do this in 1932....

not really, Kodachrome is from 1935 and Afgacolor Neu from 1936, but anyways, a color film of any brand) has nothing to do with Leica film cameras.

Larry Cloetta 06-17-2019 03:36

Great comparison, Shawn, thanks for posting this. Yes, Even though the differences are in reality fairly subtle, I am one of those who generally prefers looking at the results from the film body. And it’s not due to something as over simplified as “it’s what you are used to”.
The Elmar-M is one of the sharper modern lenses, and yes the modern combo is detectably sharper and contrastier, an itty bit, which matters to those who think sharper and contrastier is inherently more esthetically pleasing. I am not one of those. Sometimes those qualities are a plus, sometimes they are not, advertising claims aside.
Digital has one advantage, the same advantage it has always had, it’s faster, it’s easier. Resulting images, considered purely on esthetic terms, that’s a bit of a tossup. Cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias combine to determine most people’s weapon of choice.

Again, thanks for posting this. And I should add: nice job on the film processing. A lot of film isn’t processed this well, which leads many to believe that digital is “far” better, if indiscriminately processed film is all they have ever been exposed (argh) to.

Toreno 06-17-2019 03:37

Both are great!!, thank you for comparison, Shawn.

CharlesDAMorgan 06-17-2019 03:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toreno (Post 2894601)
Both are great!!, thank you for comparison, Shawn.

Precisely so! So much character in each set, they are almost* persuading me of the merits of a digital Leica.


(*but not yet!)

Toreno 06-17-2019 03:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by shawn (Post 2894587)
Hard to do this in 1932....







Shawn

Agfa color did it!!

Here from Dr. Paul Wolff photobook from his works 1924-1934.
Agfa Color film, Elmar 9cm f4. 1/4s at F6.3

Second edition 1939.

leicapixie 06-17-2019 06:09

Comparison tests are useless if one makes scans of film..
OK Imacon might be way better..
but Film made for projection printing and then be sick at result!
It may not be digital winner..

Huss 06-17-2019 06:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanskDynamit (Post 2894563)
so Leica didnt improve at all in 80 years? :D

Apparently they got worse.

:D

shawn 06-17-2019 11:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toreno (Post 2894604)
Agfa color did it!!

Here from Dr. Paul Wolff photobook from his works 1924-1934.
Agfa Color film, Elmar 9cm f4. 1/4s at F6.3

Second edition 1939.

Cool, I knew Kodachrome wasnít out in 35mm till 1936ish. What speed was Agfa color film. Based on that shot it must have been very slow, single digit iso maybe? That would have made these shots tougher hand held.

Shawn

David Hughes 06-17-2019 12:13

Everything I have seen suggests film was about 8, 10 or 12 ASA or ISO as we say these days. Tripack colour and three negative colour have been around a lot longer than people think.


Look here for samples:-


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Prokudin-Gorsky


Regards, David

Huss 06-17-2019 12:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Hughes (Post 2894698)
Everything I have seen suggests film was about 8, 10 or 12 ASA or ISO as we say these days. Tripack colour and three negative colour have been around a lot longer than people think.


Look here for samples:-


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Prokudin-Gorsky


Regards, David

Good info. So using Sunny 16 that would be 1/125 @ 5.6

shawn 06-17-2019 14:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Hughes (Post 2894698)
Everything I have seen suggests film was about 8, 10 or 12 ASA or ISO as we say these days. Tripack colour and three negative colour have been around a lot longer than people think.


Look here for samples:-


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Prokudin-Gorsky


Regards, David

This site is saying around ASA 2.

https://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/C...tml#anchorfilm

So that sailboat shot above would have been around 1/3 of a second. (Original DNG is ISO200, f4, 1/350)

Shawn

shawn 06-17-2019 14:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huss (Post 2894635)
Apparently they got worse.

:D

Look through the viewfinder(s) of the III and then the M240..... ;)

Shawn

helenhill 06-17-2019 15:18

What a creatively Fun endeavour...Thanks for that Shawn !

My favorite shots were a mix of film and digital:

BillBlackwell 06-17-2019 18:22

The Leica III holds up incredibly well compared to the M240! I would have expected an obvious difference. But, on the contrary, in some of these you can't immediately tell which is which.

David Hughes 06-17-2019 23:56

The acid test, imo, would be a print 3ft by 2ft or something as large. We are looking at very small* pictures on a screen and there's nothing like a small version of text or image to hide the flaws.

It would be interesting to get hold of a later (meaning coated) f/3.5 Elmar and repeat the tests with just the digital body...

Having said that the results are fascinating, so thanks for showing us.


Regards, David


* The winch was easiest to measure and is not even a half megapixel picture (800 by 533 pixels).

raydm6 06-18-2019 01:42

Interesting! I enjoyed the photos. Thanks very much for doing this.

Rayt 06-18-2019 02:18

Fantastic. Made my day!

shawn 06-18-2019 02:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Hughes (Post 2894787)
The acid test, imo, would be a print 3ft by 2ft or something as large. We are looking at very small* pictures on a screen and there's nothing like a small version of text or image to hide the flaws.

It would be interesting to get hold of a later (meaning coated) f/3.5 Elmar and repeat the tests with just the digital body...

Having said that the results are fascinating, so thanks for showing us.


Regards, David


* The winch was easiest to measure and is not even a half megapixel picture (800 by 533 pixels).

Album with larger versions here:

https://www.flickr.com/gp/[email protected]/Lb2Gg9

Winch in full size (click it I think to view full size and then click again to see at 100%)




Full size on the M240 has 4x the resolution of the Pakon scan. (6mp vs 24)

Shawn

shawn 06-18-2019 02:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillBlackwell (Post 2894764)
The Leica III holds up incredibly well compared to the M240! I would have expected an obvious difference. But, on the contrary, in some of these you can't immediately tell which is which.

Yes, I was very impressed with it too. I'll probably try another just Elmar and Elmar on the M240 in color to see how they compare.

Shawn

shawn 06-18-2019 02:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by helenhill (Post 2894734)
What a creatively Fun endeavour...Thanks for that Shawn !

My favorite shots were a mix of film and digital:

Thanks, mine too.

Shawn

Dralowid 06-18-2019 04:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Hughes (Post 2894787)
It would be interesting to get hold of a later (meaning coated) f/3.5 Elmar and repeat the tests with just the digital body...

...and then you could prove or disprove the 'myth' about the Red Scale Elmar.

raydm6 06-18-2019 05:42

I'm sure in 81 more years, that 1932 Leica III will still be humming along (assuming it's treated with care). Whether film is available, that's another question...


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 19:39.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.