Leica vs Leica (81 years apart)
Old 4 Weeks Ago   #1
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,136
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
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #2
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,136
Few more....











  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #3
Ccoppola82
Registered User
 
Ccoppola82 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: NY
Posts: 291
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!
__________________
Leica M2/M6
Hasselblad 500CM

Instagram
Coppola_Art
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #4
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is online now
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,120
Big job was done!
Everything, except last one, shows no significant difference.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #5
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ccoppola82 View Post
I would be curious to see what they looked like if you matched the contrast in the M240 shots to the film. Im 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
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #6
benmacphoto
Registered User
 
benmacphoto's Avatar
 
benmacphoto is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Age: 32
Posts: 898
Huge difference in tone/contrast gives the m240 away.
But sharpness and resolution are great on both.

Nice comparison.
__________________
Instagram

Website
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #7
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ko.Fe. View Post
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
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #8
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,136
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
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #9
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,254
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?
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #10
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,136
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
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #11
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is online now
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawn View Post
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 .
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #12
Steve M.
Registered User
 
Steve M. is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,321
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #13
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,136
Post

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
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #14
jarski
Registered User
 
jarski's Avatar
 
jarski is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,538
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
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #15
markjwyatt
Registered User
 
markjwyatt's Avatar
 
markjwyatt is offline
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Southern California
Posts: 499
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.
__________________
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/markjwyatt/
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #16
DanskDynamit
Registered User
 
DanskDynamit's Avatar
 
DanskDynamit is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 398
so Leica didnt improve at all in 80 years?
__________________
DanskDynamit
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #17
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by markjwyatt View Post
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
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #18
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanskDynamit View Post
so Leica didnt improve at all in 80 years?
Hard to do this in 1932....







Shawn
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #19
DanskDynamit
Registered User
 
DanskDynamit's Avatar
 
DanskDynamit is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawn View Post
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.
__________________
DanskDynamit
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #20
Larry Cloetta
Registered User
 
Larry Cloetta is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jackson, WY
Age: 69
Posts: 1,420
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.
__________________
Larry

It is about time we take photography seriously and treat it as a hobby. Elliot Erwitt
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #21
Toreno
Registered User
 
Toreno's Avatar
 
Toreno is offline
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 577
Both are great!!, thank you for comparison, Shawn.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #22
CharlesDAMorgan
Registered User
 
CharlesDAMorgan is offline
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: South East UK
Posts: 548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toreno View Post
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!)
__________________
Film amateur with a few rangefinders - Leica III, M2/M3, Werra 3 and Zeiss Super Ikonta 534/16 medium format.

Apart from that have a Rolleiflex 3.5F, the odd Minolta XD7, Hasselblad 500cm, a Topcon Super D and an Intrepid 5x4 large format (not the half of it but I am clearing them out, honest).

I do all my own black and white developing at home.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #23
Toreno
Registered User
 
Toreno's Avatar
 
Toreno is offline
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 577
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawn View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #24
leicapixie
Registered User
 
leicapixie is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto.Canada
Posts: 1,577
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..
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #25
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanskDynamit View Post
so Leica didnt improve at all in 80 years?
Apparently they got worse.

  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #26
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toreno View Post
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 wasnt 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
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #27
David Hughes
David Hughes
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,365
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
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #28
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hughes View Post
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
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #29
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hughes View Post
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
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #30
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
Apparently they got worse.

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

Shawn
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #31
helenhill
Chasing Shadows ... Light
 
helenhill's Avatar
 
helenhill is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: New Yawk
Posts: 5,485
What a creatively Fun endeavour...Thanks for that Shawn !

My favorite shots were a mix of film and digital:
__________________
Flickr.

________________________
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #32
BillBlackwell
Registered User
 
BillBlackwell's Avatar
 
BillBlackwell is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Orange County, CA
Age: 61
Posts: 859
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #33
David Hughes
David Hughes
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,365
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).
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #34
raydm6
Registered User
 
raydm6's Avatar
 
raydm6 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: North Central Massachusetts (USA)
Posts: 447
Interesting! I enjoyed the photos. Thanks very much for doing this.
__________________
flickriver
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #35
Rayt
Registered User
 
Rayt's Avatar
 
Rayt is online now
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,836
Fantastic. Made my day!
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #36
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hughes View Post
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
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #37
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillBlackwell View Post
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
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #38
shawn
Registered User
 
shawn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by helenhill View Post
What a creatively Fun endeavour...Thanks for that Shawn !

My favorite shots were a mix of film and digital:
Thanks, mine too.

Shawn
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #39
Dralowid
Michael
 
Dralowid's Avatar
 
Dralowid is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hughes View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 4 Weeks Ago   #40
raydm6
Registered User
 
raydm6's Avatar
 
raydm6 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: North Central Massachusetts (USA)
Posts: 447
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...
__________________
flickriver
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 17:02.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.