[Leica] Epson digital, or what?

[banacloj at mac.com (Juan Gea-Banacloche)]

 From the amateur perspective, I am not sure cost is a decisive issue. 
If you like your hobby, and you like the experience of digital, you 
don't really need to run the numbers to decide what makes more sense. I 
bought a digital camera in 2001 (Olympus 2100UZ), and I had a great 
time with it. I did not "need" a digital camera, but it was great to 
see the results immediately, correct the exposure as needed, realize 
someone had their eyes closed, and so on.

Since then, I have "come back" to film (B&W with vintage Leica M, back 
to developing my own negatives, and slides with SLRs) and my wife uses 
the Olympus. When we go on a trip, she has her pictures up on the web 
the night we return, while I have to wait a week or more for the slides 
to come back, to discover that many of them are improperly (or, if you 
want to be merciful, suboptimally) exposed or framed. And the ones that 
are good enough to show are hard to show (projector, screen, and so 
on).

It does not matter to me, because I enjoy the whole experience, but I 
cannot say it is very rational. A projected slide gives me a different 
experience than a print or an image on the computer screen, I like that 
experience and I keep shooting slides. And I enjoy developing, scanning 
and printing B&W. Because they are my hobbies, I practice them any way 
I want. I hope there is no "right" or "wrong" way of being an amateur 
photographer.

The nice thing about digital is that it keeps getting better and 
cheaper, so the longer you wait to jump in, the better gear you will 
get. The "need" to upgrade equipment is illusory, and I wonder if it 
will sink in in the mind of the consumers or not. For computers, you 
had the newer software always demanding faster CPUs, more memory and 
bigger hard drives, but I don't know what will make my friends upgrade 
their 5 megaixel Canon P&S any time soon, no matter how much Canon 
would like them to.

Regarding the initial question of what camera to use, and the use of 
Leica M lenses on the digital Epson, maybe someone can answer this 
question: will not be the sensor the limiting factor? I mean that, the 
same way you probably need the best film to show the differences 
between Leica lenses and other lenses (in terms of resolution), it may 
be that, at the current level of the sensors, the lenses cannot really 
show their true capacity.

For me the most amazing digital feature (and absent from all consumer 
digicams) is the low light capability. To be able to shoot at ISO 
800-1600 with that level of quality must be great. It is certainly 
expensive.

Regardless, I think that, for an amateur, if one likes the experience 
he/she gets with his/her hobby now, the reasons to change should be 
related more to the heart than to the brain.


On May 24, 2004, at 11:07 AM, John Collier wrote:

> Right now for an amateur digital is very expensive. The required 
> investment is large and the usable life of the product short. I do not 
> mean how long it is available though that is important ? heck I can 
> still buy accessories for an Nikon F3  and that is a flash in the pan 
> compared to an M? but how long you can get it easily serviced and 
> repaired. Some argue that they have most of the special computer 
> equipment already. True but I have all my film equipment already too. 
> I just do not have to replace it every five years.
>
> I shoot between fifty to a hundred rolls a year. Some years quite a 
> bit more but never any less. I shoot chromes and about 30% are keepers 
> (no I am not an amazing photographer; the standards are different when 
> you shoot mostly family). This adds up to $1000 to $1500 CAN a year in 
> film and processing.
>
> That is a good deal of money but could I do digital any less 
> expensive? I don't think so. Again assuming a similar output, I would 
> be making 600 to 1500 prints a year. As I would no longer be 
> projecting, I may have to make multiple copies so maybe add another 
> 1/3. All of a sudden it doesn't look any cheaper to me unless I go to 
> cheap cheap dime store 3x5s. Which, if I wanted that, why would I be 
> shooting with Leicas in the first place?
>
> I am not arguing against digital. I am just pointing out that it is 
> not necessarily the easy solution that everyone makes it out to be. As 
> a pro? Sure, no brainer. Heck, fifty rolls a week and fewer keepers 
> and we are talking huge savings. But amateurs are a different matter, 
> at least those of you in my boat.
>
> Does this mean I am not going to go digital? No I think I eventually 
> will. First there will have to be a decent rangefinder digital with 
> proper controls. I just do not like SLR cameras. The Digilux 2/Lumix ? 
> is very close but the EVF kills it for me. Second there will have to a 
> be a way of printing slides that matches or almost matches the quality 
> of a straight 35mm transparency. Both of these are getting closer all 
> the time.
>
> John Collier
>
> On May 23, 2004, at 12:39 PM, Peter Klein wrote:
>
>> I'm in a bit of a quandry about the whole film vs. digital situation.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information