I think as expected the negative holds more highlight detail and the digital lifts more shadow detail. When I shoot a 246/m6 combo I generally do not have the same exposures. I try my best to work each medium to its advantage…ie overexpose the negative a bit to bring more shadow detail into zone 4 and hold back the development to contain highlight density. With digital it’s the opposite, I expose for the highlight into zone 7 and lift shadow detail in post.
An interesting test that confirms my opinion - it doesn’t matter how you shoot - film or digital, what matters is whether you shoot well. You correctly noted that shooting on film is slower - you start to think more. On the other hand, shooting with a digital Leica is also slower than with an automatic Sony, but we like to slow down time sometimes. Good luck!
A good example of why I think it's still worthy to shoot film - you do get quite a different tone and look. What wouild be interesting is this sort of a comparison post-edit, to see how much work is invovled to replicate the contrasty look of the FP4 film.
Loved the comparison. Thanks for doing this. Your comparisons allowed me the opportunity to say, at least to myself, that it doesn’t really matter. Either way works well. I use an M4 with both old and new glass. My fav being Tmax 400 film..
I was super wrong. I was sure the right side was digital. I liked every single shot on the right better than its counterpart on the left. And I'm a film shooter, but I've seen so many great photos from the Monochrom!
I knew right was film and prefered it almost always. I never stopped shooting black and white on film. Digital I almost only shoot colour. And almost only SOOC Jpeg, because I shoot mostly compacts. Digital C41 so to speak. The DSLR I bought was crap and I sold it. Now I've tried again with an old mirroless Lumix G2.
@@Adventure8 Sorry, I never saw your reply 😬 I like consumer grade Kodak stocks for 35mm, and for 120 I shoot a lot of Cinestill 50D for landscapes. I like the look I can pull out of it when I edit. Ektar and Portra 160 for large format are about all you can get for color.
Same here. Just looking at my phone I assumed the M10 would have more latitude. I am sure overall the M10 is much better, especially when blown up but I will stick with film 35mm rangefinders for black and white up to 6*9 prints
Great video! I think what this really shows is that if you grab a film camera with a decent lens, you can achieve incredible results. I have been wanting an M monochrome for some time now. Invested in a Lecia MP instead to shoot BW film and any other film stock I want. This video did a great job of showing how great the M10m is but also highlighting that film is still neck and neck. Thanks for the video!
Thanks for the comparison. I have compared black & white film images from my M6 with black & white digital images from my M10. I have not noticed a significant difference between the images even when both images are shot with the same lens. Some day, I will compare 16x20 inch prints made in my wet darkroom vs. 16x20 inch prints made in my digital darkroom.
Excellent video, found myself liking the film images. There seemed to some under or over exposure with the Monochrom. I've had great mono results from my Fuji digital though. Time to load up my M3 perhaps!
I've shot film and digital for a few decades each, processing each myself. There is now no doubt in my mind that digital is technically superior to film not only in terms of resolving power but also in terms of every other manipulatable dimension, including contrast, dynamic range, exposure, colour control, etc., etc., etc. Direct comparisons such as this are fraught with problems due to myriad uncontrolled - and uncontrollable - variables, and ultimately prove little as a consequence. In the end it all comes down to what your reasons are for photographing and which technology will best serve them. For me, film now purely serves aesthetic and personal experiential needs - which are just as personally valuable as more technically defined needs. Again, the end determines the means.
Very well said and expressed. Sometimes we have to read it for us to realise what we already feel inside but just don't know why we are choosing one from another.
I’m not sure you’ll want to answer my query. My question is the £7,000+ M10 Monochrom a match for a £1,250 Rolleiflex ? That’s the decision I face. I’m seeking up to 30” square prints, nominally 20” square. The MP can’t do it without a lot of compromise. To get the same frame content as the Rolleiflex, you need to crop a square frame from a 35mm lens. So, if you start defining the end result, there is no comparison. Good video.
I guess the real question is, shoot film or digital. Also budget. Buy the Rolleiflex, use the money saved to make 50 prints. Unlimited budget get both and have fun.
In most of the images, the differences were obvious right away. The film images were crispier, had more texture , and somewhat crispier. The digital images, although possibly showing more detail were smoother, but flatter. The CCD m9 monochrom, in my opinion produced images that were very reminiscent of film. Film wins hands down.
Wow great video with the comparison!! will choose digital which is the M1OM but MP looks better so M10R with Black Paint which is 2,000 limited edition will be the best choice for me. Thanks again for the video!!!
a good compare. I'd used at first a M246 and M10 Monochrom, now I'd switched to analog M cameras, celebrating analog photography. Mostly with SW film, seldom also color negative
Before I see the results, I just want to say that I really prefer the photos on the right. I have a feeling that it's the digital though and I primarily shoot film. RESULTS: Wow I'm blown away. I'll stick with film. That lens is razor sharp and the contrast is beautiful.
The halo effect at the sunstar photo and one of the last ones with the bit IR-like tree foliage look made it clear which one film is! Excellent video and comparison. Resolution with the M10-M as expected much better - but as you said, different media film vs digital! Contrast with film depends both on the film used and the development method. At full size, they are hard to distinguish at low ISO - the M10-M certainly outshines film at high ISO. First video I have seen comparing both B&W film vs. monochrome M10-M which is great! I was hoping to see this. Since I mostly shoot at low ISO, I shoot B&W film, develop films myself and scan the negatives. Good ones I use to make 11x14" prints in my darkroom and then matt and frame them. I also made greeting cards with small-size silver gelatin prints. But I can achieve very similar print results also from digital files by making so-called digital negatives and making silver gelatin prints from them. So the print process doesn't force me to use film only. But the current monochrome camera prices hold me back of getting one.
@@Adventure8 Keep your heads up regarding all the situation in your country currently. Keeping my fingers crossed for you and all your fellow citizens. Good to see that you use your time efficiently making cool videos, books, and staying fit with exercise. Keep going!
@@MB-or8js Great to have your support. It's wonderful getting comments sharing how people feel and that my videos are helping in someway in these challenging times. Much appreciated. What country are you in? I think Australia has resigned to the fact that we will need to coexist with Covid similar to UK, rather than elimination. Time will tell. Stay healthy.
From first 5 photos I could recognized that the right side is the film side. I shoot with film exclusively and the reasons are: I’m more careful and precise before shooting, I like the results much more than the digital and I do enjoy the analogue mechanical tech, independent of battery, no display, can shoot in -20 degrees, can experiment with different films and colors, I can sacrifice to switch to digital and I even don’t want to try.
Thanks for watching and commenting. Yes, film still has its purpose. I'll be doing some video on my film, medium format cameras, Bronica 6x6 and Mamiya RB67. Thanks for supporting the channel.
I think it is a matter of preference obviously, but in general I prefer the denser shadows and the bigger latitude with the highlights of the negative. Using a low ISO film is due to give that. I obtain similar differences od results between the two digitals I work with paired. The M9 has a lower dynamic range that the M10R. Although the m10r raw using the leica starting preset has color that is easy to pair with the CCD one, shadows tend always to be lighter and that give the image when seeing the untouched raw a more digital look.
Very thought provoking, thanks. I was a Nikon shooter in the film days, had a Leica 4p but because it had no meter I seldom used it. I was using a F3hp and then an F100. I still have all my Nikon glass, but never bought a FF dslf, swithed to mirrorless. Now many years later I got an SL-2 and a CL. The CL is set to B&W. I wonder if you could compare Monochrome to JPEG B&W on FF camera. Since the CL doesn't have IBIS I bought all F1.4 max lenses so I could up the shutter speed a bit
Thanks for sharing your photography journey. I did an earlier video on the Leica M240 B&W RAW files converted to B&W, compared to the Monochrom. When shooting JPG B&W files, I found the M240 images had greater contrast than the Monochrom. A couple of earlier videos that I made, may be relevant. COLOUR vs B&W RAW: Leica M240P vs M10 Monochrom: Camera vs Lightroom ua-cam.com/video/m23Kk34y-88/v-deo.html Leica Monochrom vs M240P Black & White - Can you really see the difference? ua-cam.com/video/pkZrgf1nO-U/v-deo.html
Either you used color filter or perhaps the B/W film responds differently to certain color wavelengths, there's no way you can match the two images just by contrast/ curves alone.
Great video. I have been waiting to see this sort of comparison. As you said neither is better they are both different and great in their own way. Do you think think the choice of lens had any significant impact? I have an M10R and shoot a lot of Monochrome with it. I'm really happy with the results and appreciate being able to apply "colour filters" in editing. I understand the inherent resolution benefit with the lack of a bayer filter in the M10M and the improved ISO performance. Nevertheless, I am keen to see a B&W comparison between M10M and M10R. I'm pretty certain you have an M10R. I also live in Sydney and would be happy to lend you mine if that helps.
Thanks for commenting and watching the video. I think the observations would be the same regardless of the lens used. In addition to the Monochrom, I often set my colour M10R and M240 to shoot a duplicate black & white JPG.
@@Adventure8 Thanks Peter. My heart says grab an M10M one day. My head says go for a 35 and 50 Lux instead. Not even a first world dilemma. Really enjoy your videos and photos. Thank you.
@@splootan : I guess my choice is the M10 Monochrom, if I had to choose between the MP and the Monochrom. The main reason, the M10-M is my first dedicated digital monochrome. I have other 35mm film bodies, including a Leica M4. Are you a Leica shooter?
@@Adventure8 yes I am I shoot only black and white but prefer film! My I phone can take BW no way as good as the M10M but nothing can imitate film MP Is something that will last you forever!
Interesting that in most of these examples, the film version has vastly better highlights and tonality in general. I suppose that's an artifact of the scanning
Great video! So here is a question for you! If you had the option of buying only either the Leica m10 Monochrom or the Mp wil loads of film which one would you go for? Thanks
Great question. In todays world of the internet and streaming, I guess the M10 Monochrom is the answer. I do reminisce about days gone by when I shot B&W film, developed and enlarged prints in my own dark room. Those were the days. Times move on. What's your answer to your question?
@@Adventure8 it’s tough! I love the flow and slow nature of film, but like you! If you are lucky enough to have the ultimate tool and the Leica M Monochrom is that tool! The. Perhaps I should go for that! Just how long will the camera last me before it breaks!!
For the current price of the MP I would simply add another $1-2K and get the M10-M instead if I started from scratch at this point. If high ISO shooting is preferred then it is without question the M10-M, too. But film&darkroom stuff is more hands-on work which I often enjoy and where I don't have to sit again in front of my computer only to post process. I am using the M6 for B&W film photography which is currently all I need. I might upgrade in the future to a monochrome digital M, but even then I won't sell my M6.
@@MB-or8js Looking at Ebay auctions the Leica R6.2 and the Nikon F6 were tempting before I watched this video. Now I will wait for the Leica Q2 sensor to be put in an SL2 body instead. While the film cameras are cheap in today's price one 128mp SD card saves so much money over developing and scanning costs and the SL2 is 47mp, and even in low light with IBIS it makes for a much better picture taking tool.
I shoot both digital and film, as an amateur. Kids or events that require auto focus, the Z6 comes out. If I can be more methodical and speed is of no concern, out comes the Hexar or MP. Also, I'm being enamored by Kodak Cine Film stock repurposed for stills. Love the colors out of the scans. If only TX1s or XPans are not absurdly expensive on he 2nd hand market.
how much of a difference is there in the film PRINTS from the digital PRINTS... does anyone do traditional enlargements anymore, or does everyone just scan the negative and turn film into digital??
Maybe the resolution is restricted by the film type and microlens of the scanner, I have seen good film and high-res scan can have the same level of details with 30MP digital, like Kodak motion picture filme, Ektar & TMax100 etc., can have very high potential in terms of resolution.
Highly recommend Adox CMS20 shot at 12 iso. I am using it mostly for the tonallity as my Nikon scanner cannot pick up the full resolution, but if the claims from Adox are correct - the film isn't the limiting factor regarding resolution.
Given the amount of different tools available on Lightroom and the small size of the pictures, I doubt this exercise can give us a useful answer on the subject, aside from the fact that if you see your photos only on screen, it doesnt really matter. Maybe something more interesting would be a live comparison between a first class BW wet print against a state of the art digital print of the same subject (hopefully, a person). In any case, I still find film much more fun... ;)
You (or a professional) processed the film negative so why not doing the same with the DNG instead of presenting a JPEG from camera, which is just meant as preview?
I don't think photographers should have to explain their photographs, but I would hope that a photographer putting together a few of his photographs for a soon-to-be-historic UA-cam video would - as a courtesy to his viewers - choose only photographs that he, himself, really likes.
honestly I don’t see the point. First because the methodology used does make sense only for comparison sake -but not as photography- to bump up whatever the MP measured. That means that you are not sure of exposing the M10 adequately. Second, because what you are taking is a jpeg and not a raw that can be processed. I don’t see these as realistic conditions and hence, it does not tell me much. My apologies, I am not intending to be offensive, I understand the effort but it is not helpful.
Thanks for watching and sharing your comments. I'm sure my viewers (including myself) often learn more from the comments than the content of the video. Keep it up.
How completely pointless.. You shot with 2 completely different lenses. Makes this test worthless.. Sorry but.. there is no way to compare film to digital unless you use the same lens on both cameras...
I was convinced the left was film because it’s had some bright flares to it, seemed grainy too… but I was wrong the crisper and darker pictures were film. I’m happily surprised. I’m a very amateur photographer I’ve only used Black and White and I’m getting inspired to get back into it.
I think as expected the negative holds more highlight detail and the digital lifts more shadow detail. When I shoot a 246/m6 combo I generally do not have the same exposures. I try my best to work each medium to its advantage…ie overexpose the negative a bit to bring more shadow detail into zone 4 and hold back the development to contain highlight density. With digital it’s the opposite, I expose for the highlight into zone 7 and lift shadow detail in post.
Thanks for commenting. Very informative. Much appreciated.
An interesting test that confirms my opinion - it doesn’t matter how you shoot - film or digital, what matters is whether you shoot well. You correctly noted that shooting on film is slower - you start to think more. On the other hand, shooting with a digital Leica is also slower than with an automatic Sony, but we like to slow down time sometimes. Good luck!
Thanks, slow photography is really rewarding, both in the process and often the results.
A good example of why I think it's still worthy to shoot film - you do get quite a different tone and look.
What wouild be interesting is this sort of a comparison post-edit, to see how much work is invovled to replicate the contrasty look of the FP4 film.
Thanks for watching. Good suggestion.
Loved the comparison. Thanks for doing this. Your comparisons allowed me the opportunity to say, at least to myself, that it doesn’t really matter. Either way works well. I use an M4 with both old and new glass. My fav being Tmax 400 film..
👍
I was super wrong. I was sure the right side was digital. I liked every single shot on the right better than its counterpart on the left. And I'm a film shooter, but I've seen so many great photos from the Monochrom!
Thanks for watching and doing the quiz. What film stock/s do you mainly shoot?
I knew right was film and prefered it almost always. I never stopped shooting black and white on film. Digital I almost only shoot colour. And almost only SOOC Jpeg, because I shoot mostly compacts. Digital C41 so to speak. The DSLR I bought was crap and I sold it. Now I've tried again with an old mirroless Lumix G2.
@@Adventure8 Sorry, I never saw your reply 😬
I like consumer grade Kodak stocks for 35mm, and for 120 I shoot a lot of Cinestill 50D for landscapes. I like the look I can pull out of it when I edit. Ektar and Portra 160 for large format are about all you can get for color.
Same here. Just looking at my phone I assumed the M10 would have more latitude. I am sure overall the M10 is much better, especially when blown up but I will stick with film 35mm rangefinders for black and white up to 6*9 prints
Excellent video! Exactly what I was looking for :-) BTW what lenses did you shoot on?
Looking at the thumb nail, the M10-R has the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 Nokton. The M10M has an old Leica 35mm f2 Summicron.
Thanks for the comparison! Would be cool to see them taken with the same lens if only to remove the uncertainty.
Good idea! Maybe in future videos
Great video! I think what this really shows is that if you grab a film camera with a decent lens, you can achieve incredible results. I have been wanting an M monochrome for some time now. Invested in a Lecia MP instead to shoot BW film and any other film stock I want. This video did a great job of showing how great the M10m is but also highlighting that film is still neck and neck. Thanks for the video!
Yes, I love shooting both B&W film and the digital monochrome. Two very different experiences. Thanks for watching.
Thanks for the comparison.
I have compared black & white film images from my M6 with black & white digital images from my M10. I have not noticed a significant difference between the images even when both images are shot with the same lens.
Some day, I will compare 16x20 inch prints made in my wet darkroom vs. 16x20 inch prints made in my digital darkroom.
Thanks for watching and sharing your experience. Nothing like having the slow reveal in the darkroom watching your print come to life.
Excellent video, found myself liking the film images. There seemed to some under or over exposure with the Monochrom. I've had great mono results from my Fuji digital though. Time to load up my M3 perhaps!
Thanks for sharing
I've shot film and digital for a few decades each, processing each myself. There is now no doubt in my mind that digital is technically superior to film not only in terms of resolving power but also in terms of every other manipulatable dimension, including contrast, dynamic range, exposure, colour control, etc., etc., etc. Direct comparisons such as this are fraught with problems due to myriad uncontrolled - and uncontrollable - variables, and ultimately prove little as a consequence. In the end it all comes down to what your reasons are for photographing and which technology will best serve them. For me, film now purely serves aesthetic and personal experiential needs - which are just as personally valuable as more technically defined needs. Again, the end determines the means.
Great summary and well articulated. Agree 100%
Very well said and expressed. Sometimes we have to read it for us to realise what we already feel inside but just don't know why we are choosing one from another.
I’m not sure you’ll want to answer my query. My question is the £7,000+ M10 Monochrom a match for a £1,250 Rolleiflex ? That’s the decision I face. I’m seeking up to 30” square prints, nominally 20” square. The MP can’t do it without a lot of compromise. To get the same frame content as the Rolleiflex, you need to crop a square frame from a 35mm lens. So, if you start defining the end result, there is no comparison.
Good video.
I guess the real question is, shoot film or digital. Also budget. Buy the Rolleiflex, use the money saved to make 50 prints. Unlimited budget get both and have fun.
In most of the images, the differences were obvious right away. The film images were crispier, had more texture , and somewhat crispier. The digital images, although possibly showing more detail were smoother, but flatter. The CCD m9 monochrom, in my opinion produced images that were very reminiscent of film. Film wins hands down.
Thanks for sharing.
Wow great video with the comparison!! will choose digital which is the M1OM but MP looks better so M10R with Black Paint which is 2,000 limited edition will be the best choice for me. Thanks again for the video!!!
Glad you liked the video.
a good compare. I'd used at first a M246 and M10 Monochrom, now I'd switched to analog M cameras, celebrating analog photography. Mostly with SW film, seldom also color negative
Fantastic. Thanks for watching.
Very very interesting
Glad you think so!
Before I see the results, I just want to say that I really prefer the photos on the right. I have a feeling that it's the digital though and I primarily shoot film.
RESULTS: Wow I'm blown away. I'll stick with film. That lens is razor sharp and the contrast is beautiful.
Thanks for watching and commenting. Cheers
Especially for black and white thingy, i tend to lean more towards films …just like the looks out of the negatives, but im not a pixel peeper
Thanks for watching and commenting.
The halo effect at the sunstar photo and one of the last ones with the bit IR-like tree foliage look made it clear which one film is! Excellent video and comparison. Resolution with the M10-M as expected much better - but as you said, different media film vs digital! Contrast with film depends both on the film used and the development method. At full size, they are hard to distinguish at low ISO - the M10-M certainly outshines film at high ISO. First video I have seen comparing both B&W film vs. monochrome M10-M which is great! I was hoping to see this. Since I mostly shoot at low ISO, I shoot B&W film, develop films myself and scan the negatives. Good ones I use to make 11x14" prints in my darkroom and then matt and frame them. I also made greeting cards with small-size silver gelatin prints. But I can achieve very similar print results also from digital files by making so-called digital negatives and making silver gelatin prints from them. So the print process doesn't force me to use film only. But the current monochrome camera prices hold me back of getting one.
Thanks for watching and glad you liked the video. Cheers
@@Adventure8 Keep your heads up regarding all the situation in your country currently. Keeping my fingers crossed for you and all your fellow citizens. Good to see that you use your time efficiently making cool videos, books, and staying fit with exercise. Keep going!
@@MB-or8js Great to have your support. It's wonderful getting comments sharing how people feel and that my videos are helping in someway in these challenging times. Much appreciated. What country are you in? I think Australia has resigned to the fact that we will need to coexist with Covid similar to UK, rather than elimination. Time will tell. Stay healthy.
@@Adventure8 I live in the US but i am originally from Germany. Haven't been able to go back for nearly two years now.
@@MB-or8js Yes travel seems to be still years away... Stay safe
Use 400 speed film with some character, the narrative is different and more expressive of the differences between film and digital.
👍
From first 5 photos I could recognized that the right side is the film side. I shoot with film exclusively and the reasons are: I’m more careful and precise before shooting, I like the results much more than the digital and I do enjoy the analogue mechanical tech, independent of battery, no display, can shoot in -20 degrees, can experiment with different films and colors, I can sacrifice to switch to digital and I even don’t want to try.
Thanks for watching and commenting. Yes, film still has its purpose. I'll be doing some video on my film, medium format cameras, Bronica 6x6 and Mamiya RB67. Thanks for supporting the channel.
I think it is a matter of preference obviously, but in general I prefer the denser shadows and the bigger latitude with the highlights of the negative. Using a low ISO film is due to give that. I obtain similar differences od results between the two digitals I work with paired. The M9 has a lower dynamic range that the M10R. Although the m10r raw using the leica starting preset has color that is easy to pair with the CCD one, shadows tend always to be lighter and that give the image when seeing the untouched raw a more digital look.
👍
Very thought provoking, thanks. I was a Nikon shooter in the film days, had a Leica 4p but because it had no meter I seldom used it.
I was using a F3hp and then an F100. I still have all my Nikon glass, but never bought a FF dslf, swithed to mirrorless.
Now many years later I got an SL-2 and a CL. The CL is set to B&W. I wonder if you could compare Monochrome to JPEG B&W
on FF camera. Since the CL doesn't have IBIS I bought all F1.4 max lenses so I could up the shutter speed a bit
Thanks for sharing your photography journey. I did an earlier video on the Leica M240 B&W RAW files converted to B&W, compared to the Monochrom. When shooting JPG B&W files, I found the M240 images had greater contrast than the Monochrom. A couple of earlier videos that I made, may be relevant.
COLOUR vs B&W RAW: Leica M240P vs M10 Monochrom: Camera vs Lightroom
ua-cam.com/video/m23Kk34y-88/v-deo.html
Leica Monochrom vs M240P Black & White - Can you really see the difference?
ua-cam.com/video/pkZrgf1nO-U/v-deo.html
Either you used color filter or perhaps the B/W film responds differently to certain color wavelengths, there's no way you can match the two images just by contrast/ curves alone.
👍
Great video. I have been waiting to see this sort of comparison. As you said neither is better they are both different and great in their own way. Do you think think the choice of lens had any significant impact?
I have an M10R and shoot a lot of Monochrome with it. I'm really happy with the results and appreciate being able to apply "colour filters" in editing. I understand the inherent resolution benefit with the lack of a bayer filter in the M10M and the improved ISO performance. Nevertheless, I am keen to see a B&W comparison between M10M and M10R. I'm pretty certain you have an M10R. I also live in Sydney and would be happy to lend you mine if that helps.
Thanks for commenting and watching the video. I think the observations would be the same regardless of the lens used. In addition to the Monochrom, I often set my colour M10R and M240 to shoot a duplicate black & white JPG.
@@Adventure8 Thanks Peter. My heart says grab an M10M one day. My head says go for a 35 and 50 Lux instead. Not even a first world dilemma. Really enjoy your videos and photos. Thank you.
I prefer the film. I'm buying up 100 rolls of b+w and some yellow filters. 👍
👍
Wow, the film images are way better in contrast, sharpness than the digital; before you started zooming in on them.
Thanks
Glad you liked the video. Yes, film is in a world of its own. Love using both the Monochrom and film.
@@Adventure8 but if you had to choose just one…
@@splootan : I guess my choice is the M10 Monochrom, if I had to choose between the MP and the Monochrom. The main reason, the M10-M is my first dedicated digital monochrome. I have other 35mm film bodies, including a Leica M4. Are you a Leica shooter?
@@Adventure8 yes I am I shoot only black and white but prefer film! My I phone can take BW no way as good as the M10M but nothing can imitate film MP Is something that will last you forever!
@@splootan : Excellent - stay safe and shoot on
Interesting that in most of these examples, the film version has vastly better highlights and tonality in general. I suppose that's an artifact of the scanning
👍
Great video! So here is a question for you! If you had the option of buying only either the Leica m10 Monochrom or the Mp wil loads of film which one would you go for? Thanks
Great question. In todays world of the internet and streaming, I guess the M10 Monochrom is the answer. I do reminisce about days gone by when I shot B&W film, developed and enlarged prints in my own dark room. Those were the days. Times move on. What's your answer to your question?
@@Adventure8 it’s tough! I love the flow and slow nature of film, but like you! If you are lucky enough to have the ultimate tool and the Leica M Monochrom is that tool! The. Perhaps I should go for that! Just how long will the camera last me before it breaks!!
For the current price of the MP I would simply add another $1-2K and get the M10-M instead if I started from scratch at this point. If high ISO shooting is preferred then it is without question the M10-M, too. But film&darkroom stuff is more hands-on work which I often enjoy and where I don't have to sit again in front of my computer only to post process. I am using the M6 for B&W film photography which is currently all I need. I might upgrade in the future to a monochrome digital M, but even then I won't sell my M6.
@@MB-or8js Looking at Ebay auctions the Leica R6.2 and the Nikon F6 were tempting before I watched this video.
Now I will wait for the Leica Q2 sensor to be put in an SL2 body instead. While the film cameras are cheap
in today's price one 128mp SD card saves so much money over developing and scanning costs and the SL2
is 47mp, and even in low light with IBIS it makes for a much better picture taking tool.
@@zenjitsuman but SL2 and Q2 does share the same sensor so I’m confused about putting the Q2 sensor in Sl2 statement.
I shoot both digital and film, as an amateur. Kids or events that require auto focus, the Z6 comes out. If I can be more methodical and speed is of no concern, out comes the Hexar or MP.
Also, I'm being enamored by Kodak Cine Film stock repurposed for stills. Love the colors out of the scans. If only TX1s or XPans are not absurdly expensive on he 2nd hand market.
Thanks for watching and adding your experience and comments.
how much of a difference is there in the film PRINTS from the digital PRINTS... does anyone do traditional enlargements anymore, or does everyone just scan the negative and turn film into digital??
I'll have to get my enlarger working again one day. Set up the dark room and create magic.
Right side is film ?
👍
Maybe the resolution is restricted by the film type and microlens of the scanner, I have seen good film and high-res scan can have the same level of details with 30MP digital, like Kodak motion picture filme, Ektar & TMax100 etc., can have very high potential in terms of resolution.
Thanks for sharing your experience. Yep, getting a good digital image from film is an art or perseverance.
Highly recommend Adox CMS20 shot at 12 iso. I am using it mostly for the tonallity as my Nikon scanner cannot pick up the full resolution, but if the claims from Adox are correct - the film isn't the limiting factor regarding resolution.
Given the amount of different tools available on Lightroom and the small size of the pictures, I doubt this exercise can give us a useful answer on the subject, aside from the fact that if you see your photos only on screen, it doesnt really matter. Maybe something more interesting would be a live comparison between a first class BW wet print against a state of the art digital print of the same subject (hopefully, a person). In any case, I still find film much more fun... ;)
Yes, you are right. Film is fun and on the back of a mobile phone or computer screen, it's hard to differentiate. Thanks for commenting and watching.
Cut your development time 5 or 10 % and they match except for detail. Or raise contrast in PS for digital.
👍
With sunlight film wins hands down.It is so much better!Digital only at night.
Thanks for watching and commenting. Happy New Year.
You (or a professional) processed the film negative so why not doing the same with the DNG instead of presenting a JPEG from camera, which is just meant as preview?
In most cases I use the DNG, convert to JPG for the video. Easier to handle in Final Cut Pro.
omg film is so much better i'm stick with film
👍
I don't think photographers should have to explain their photographs, but I would hope that a photographer putting together a few of his photographs for a soon-to-be-historic UA-cam video would - as a courtesy to his viewers - choose only photographs that he, himself, really likes.
👍
honestly I don’t see the point. First because the methodology used does make sense only for comparison sake -but not as photography- to bump up whatever the MP measured. That means that you are not sure of exposing the M10 adequately. Second, because what you are taking is a jpeg and not a raw that can be processed. I don’t see these as realistic conditions and hence, it does not tell me much. My apologies, I am not intending to be offensive, I understand the effort but it is not helpful.
Thanks for watching and sharing your comments. I'm sure my viewers (including myself) often learn more from the comments than the content of the video. Keep it up.
How completely pointless.. You shot with 2 completely different lenses. Makes this test worthless.. Sorry but.. there is no way to compare film to digital unless you use the same lens on both cameras...
Thanks for commenting and watching.
I was convinced the left was film because it’s had some bright flares to it, seemed grainy too… but I was wrong the crisper and darker pictures were film. I’m happily surprised. I’m a very amateur photographer I’ve only used Black and White and I’m getting inspired to get back into it.
Thanks for watching. Yes, I also need to more B&W