Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/06/14

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Peter Does Oregon, with a Leica
From: stasys1 at cox.net (Stasys Petravicius)
Date: Tue Jun 14 12:30:24 2005
References: <ECFF598C017987438D7507FC90037C9F023AA0FD@ws-sea-mse1.milky-way.battelle.org>

Peter- A well thought out and written reply. Nothing wrong with film! 
Stasys
On Jun 14, 2005, at 10:05 AM, Klein, Peter A wrote:

> Regarding: http://gallery.leica-users.org/album225
> Richard asked:
>> Nice pics. So why the M6 and not the E-1?
>
> Several reasons.  As Sonny mentioned, I do like using a manual Leica.
> Nothing else feels as good to use (personal preference, your mileage 
> may
> vary).  I enjoy shooting digital with my E-1, but I still prefer film
> when I have the time to deal with it.  And for trips with my wife, 
> where
> I can't always concentrate 100% on the technical aspects, I prefer the
> simplicity and exposure latitude of film.
>
> 1.  Dynamic range:  Digital just doesn't have the dynamic range that
> negative film has.  Some of those Crater Lake pictures with both sun on
> snow and shadows would have been pretty well impossible with 
> single-shot
> digital.  Yes, I could shoot two exposures and combine, but that limits
> me to a tripod, which I rarely use.  A digital shot on a bright day
> containing both bright highlights and deep shadows, exposed for the
> former, often has pretty muddy shadows, and pulling them up accentuates
> noise.
>
> 2.  Detail:  I'm sorry, but a 4000 dpi film scan blows any 5-8 
> megapixel
> DSLR away in terms of detail.  I can even see it on a 5x7.  Above 8x10
> it's quite noticeable if you look at prints side by side. Digital is
> smoother and has less noise, so it may look more pleasing some of the
> time. But with film, there just is more "there" there.  It also means I
> can crop more when necessary without losing *essential* detail.  Last
> night, I was looking at a couple of rolls of Provia 100 slide film from
> the trip.  Under a loupe, they are *sweet.*
>
> 3.  Wide angle.  I don't have a 21mm equivalent for the E-1.
>
> 4.  Size, weight.  My Leica travel outfit weights less than the E-1
> stuff, and the camera with one lens around my neck is much easier to
> handle.
>
> 5.  The lenses, the lenses, the lenses.  I prefer the "look" of my 
> Leica
> lenses.  I won't get into the theoretical optical stratosphere here, 
> but
> I know what I like, and with the classic Leica Summicrons, I've got it.
> The VC 21/4 and 90/3.5 are both very good lenses, too, and very small
> and handy.
>
> 6.  Rangefinder focusing and depth-of-field setup.  I focus better,
> faster and more precisely with RF focusing.  Getting far and near
> settings and putting them within the depth of field scales on the 
> lenses
> is easiest with a rangefinder.  Many modern DSLRs don't even have DOF
> scales, and the distance scales are laughable.
>
> 7.  Film fails gracefully.  Digital just reaches a limit and that's it.
> This refers to both overexposed highlights (and digital color shifts in
> and around them), and degree of enlargement.
>
> Digital has advantages, too:
>
> - I would not have had to pay for processing and scanning.
> - I would not have to spend time scanning at 4000 dpi if I want a 
> decent
> large print.
> - I could vary the ISO at will instead of being stuck with the film in
> the camera.
> - I could shoot RAW and get better Web-picture quality than the Noritsu
> scans.
> - Autofocus would have been easier chasing small animals.
> - Longer lenses are possible with a DSLR.
> - Some framing issues would have been easier with a DSLR.
> - The E-1's 28-105mm equivalent zoom would mean much less lens 
> changing.
> - Macro is much more possible with an SLR.
> - The E-1 has better eye relief with glasses than a .72x Leica.  I 
> often
> don't wear my contact lenses when traveling. I have taken to putting my
> glasses on a neck cord and letting them dangle when I compose with a
> 35mm lens.  Not needed with the E-1.
>
> All in all, I use the E-1 for convenience, particularly when I know the
> light won't be too contrasty.  For travel, for serious B&W, available
> light and when I know I need a certain level of detail (and this
> especially means landscapes), I prefer film.  If/when digital resolves
> the issues I've noted above, I reserve the right to change my mind.
>
> --Peter
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>


In reply to: Message from kleinp at BATTELLE.ORG (Klein, Peter A) ([Leica] Peter Does Oregon, with a Leica)