Leica M6 vs M11 feat. Leica 50mm APO-Summicron-M+ Portra400
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 кві 2023
- I wanted to try and remove as many variables as possible in order to compare these two cameras, or more accurately, comparing film vs digital using the same system. Nothing is perfect and this was for fun so I hope you enjoy.
www.alexjonsonphoto.com @alexjohnsonphoto
#leicam11 #leicam6 #Leica50mmaposummicron #leicatests #portra400 - Наука та технологія
Best comparison ever between film or digital. Very consistent and really bridges the gap between two mediums.
The test we all needed, thank you very much ! It's crazy how much magenta cast there is in the M11 files and never liked it in the reviews of that camera I saw before. Seeing it here compared to film though it actually makes the digital files it warmer and more similar to film how we have it in our imagination. I was blown away the first couple shots to learn that actually the one I thought it was film was digital and viceversa and I have been shooting Portraits for 20+ years so I should have known better.
Just goes to show you that those saying film has a quality you cant get in digital is bunk. Few to none would be able to tell the difference in an A B comparison with any consistency.
Thanks for this great video and comparison! I've been shooting exclusively on film with my one and only beloved and trusted MP since 2012. And since last week with the 50mm APO. Still waiting for the results from the lab. :)
This is a great comparison thanks for posting. I've been around the digital round-about a few times and I bought the M11 this time and it's already gone back. It's not the camera's fault, it's just film to me is so much more beautiful and the tones all work together wonderfully. I didn't like the milk aspect of the M11 you spoke about which you can get from a lot of digital. To be fair I much prefer the film workflow too, from shooting to post. I think at least 50% of the reason to keep shooting film lay in that side of things. The other is the look, and your photos have really summed that up, there wasn't a single digital photo I preferred and even if there was the workflow would remain an issue. Your comparison was one of the few interesting ones out there. Thanks again for sharing.
still shooting MP+portra with M11 side by side and love them both, just a matter of 50lux on one vs 35 lux on the other
As my wife said while I was boring her with my photography geekiness: film is like a home cooked meal, digital is like eating out at the restaurant. Film has soul. I wonder if you could get the reds to match in Capture One. It has an individual curve for each RGB channel….
Also, great video! I was quite interested in this topic myself.
Like you, I grew up with film. Actually it was the only option as I started in the 70's. Over the last year I have returned to film after 20 years working with digital. I now use both regularly. Love my M6 and Voigtlander 35mm Nokton. I also shoot with the Q2 and love the results. I've never thought to compare side by side. Might be an interesting test. I'm almost exclusively black and white using TriX and HP5. I sometimes take both film and digital when I wander but it depends on my mood.
I’ve compared ektachrome 100 with my M10P on my MP using a 50mm summilux. I love that reach in and grab quality you’re talking about with film. I call it presence or soul. However when the sun goes down and you need to bump up the ISO the digital takes over 😊 thanks for you video
I enjoyed your “M rail” set up, great video. I’m using a SL and M6 but I love Ms
Great comparison. Thanks for doing it! I’m just film right now, but later this year or early next I’ll bite on a newer Leica..
This is the comparison everyone has been waiting for. Probably on the other side of the fence of most here. I own an M11 but love film and want to get a film M. That said though happy to see these results and may one day get a film M but for now will enjoy the M11 :) Loved this video.
Thanks so much! The M11 is my favorite digital camera I’ve ever owned, so I’m not sure you’re missing much! There are always deals to be had on film m bodies too!
Nice video...I love shooting film. My problem with film has become its all about the scans so shooting film to wait for the scans has become cumbersome. I have really enjoyed using Cobalt profiles lately. They have done an incredible job of matching the film stocks. Be interested to hear if you have used them at all. Such a great starting point to match the film aesthetic in a truly balanced way. I also recognized the name and realized I bought a piece of gear off you. Cheers man!!!! Good stuff here
Really good comparison. Just wondering about the blue vs the magenta tint in the snow on that last image. Could that have been corrected? The film version looked more accurate or faithful to the real colours in that case somehow.
Thanks for the sharing. Can I know which film scanner are you using?
Great comparison. I agree with your thoughts about dynamic range, though I will say that if you pay attention to your exposure blowing out your highlights shouldn't be a problem. Also the only time I've had a real problem with bad DR is when using Polaroid film both Polaroid integral and peel apart. Any high end digital camera since the early 00's should have enough DR to take care of you unless of course you want HDR photos (no thanks).
Hi Alex great video. Is it possible for you to share the raw files of both for atleast 3 to 4 images. It will really help me study these really well. It would be really grateful!
Thanks for this.
Now I need to go buy me the apo summicron for Leica M-A.
Good job and also a Minnesotan. Well former. Wether leica will admit or not or just the base iso at 64 is all we need to know. I’ve felt the m11 feels a lot like kodachrome. I usually prefer the m11 profile but sometimes with flesh tones it’s too warm. This helps me put to rest using film again. Thanks!
Damn magenta cast on the M11. What were they thinking?
A little correction: let's compare the Leica m11 vs porta 400. The Leica m6 basically does almost nothing to the final result, it only holds the film and the lens. Now a digital camera is very much its sensor.
I do admit as much in the video, but that’s not as fun! Thanks for watching!
Yea, but he used the same glass which was so nice for this comparison
@@builtbytitan yes.
@alexjohnsonphotography Thank you. And of course the metering is also being compared.
Important. So many UA-camrs post reviews of film cameras as if the camera body has something to do with how the image will look. M6 users do this a lot. It’s all the lens.
Loved the presentation, Alex. Do you scan your own film?
its so strange that you keep getting a red shift on the m11 i have never encountered this shift so not sure if its the white balancing or what but just noticed it alot in your images
Great comparison, but it would have helped to outline how you scanned the negatives, e.g. just photograph them or use a proper film scanner which scans the IR layer as well and can produce full 64bit RAW files, e.g. using VueScan or Silverfast. In my experience the scan method is a key part. Your scans look great and judging from the direction you moved the sliders in Lightroom, you were no longer working with the negative but a positive file conversion. Right?
Great images to. Very much enjoyed watching this. And as for the lens, it doesn't get any better than that. Nice. I'm "cheap", so I spread my budget across a 50 Summilux and the 50 Apo Lanthar.
At the end of the day, and all said and done, one is analogue and has a physical presence, and the other is just a procession of zeros and ones needing powerful computers to make sense of them. I know which I prefer. Thank you.
Very interesting and thanks for sharing. But are the M11 photos straight of the camera or are they edited to be similar to the film?
Great comparison, I agree, film has a particular quality that is unique, digital sensors have made great progress but I think the focus has been on resolution and megapixel, colour science hasn’t been the forefront, to my experience. Whereas film, I feel like it was more about the colour science and the grain of the film. So with those being the focus points film tends to understand the scene way differently than a digital sensor does.
I shoot with the MP and a Steel rim as my main driver.
I haven’t shot film since 2006. Before that I would go through about $10k of film a month in my prepress studio. Scan backs replaced 4x5 and 8x10 film and digital captures replaced my drum scanners. No more chemicals or wasted silver. Big win for me, my customers, and the environment.
Great video. How was the film developed and scanned?
Processed and scanned by @theFindLab here in the states. Scanned on a Noritsu scanner at 4000x6000 resolution. I’ve been working with them for many years and can always expect wonderful results.
90% of my work is B&W film and I shoot Leica rangefinders and Nikon SLRs. I love the process of shooting film, and then develop and scan myself to save money.
A big issue for me is the cost of digital M cameras, and as I have resisted buying any camera gear since early 2020, my only costs have been film, developing chemicals, and time.
Film scans from a Nikon D750 with a 55mm f/2.8 lens also beats the quality I have gotten from a professional lab (I’ve never paid for drum scans though).
I'm finally printing BW negs and it's so awesome to have a tangible thing in your hands at the end of the day and not just a file on a computer.
I ave been very impressed with the dynamic range of Kodak Vision 3 stocks.11+ stops. Very versatile film with a lovely warm Kodak look. Prefer it with Remjet and through ECN2.
Did you shoot dng? Nice Rendering
I shoot both digital and film. I find I like how film naturally handles transitions from light to shadow, especially with skin tones. I just can't match it well in digital. I use an Leica 240MP vs a M6 with Portra 800 and always gravitate to the Portra images, as you said, they seem milky smooth and to almost glow.
I agree! It’s all in the transitions!
@@phillipbanes5484 Exactly. He literally goes on about hte amazing transitions in one over hte other, and its the m11.
I've been looking for such a test! Did you match the white balance between the film and digital? Also, given portra 400 is a 400 iso film, perhaps it would make more sense to shoot the M11 at 400 iso as well? Last question is resolution. I've always wondered how much detail/resolution you can get on film vs digital especially without any sharpness constraint from the lens (ie. your apo). If you scanned your negative using say the pixel shift mode on the A7RV creating a 240MP file and downsampled it to your M11's 60MP, how would detail compare between the film and digital file?
White balance on the digital files were color matched to the film and the m11 was shot at base iso, while the film was metered for iso 100 to get the clean shadow detail. Film resolution can be quite high, especially on a drum scanner the sky’s the limit. Would be a great but expensive test. I don’t need to deliver anything beyond 4000x6000 for my film scans, so that’s what I request from the lab. I suspect you could get great results with mirrorless camera scanning as well.
@@alexjohnsonphotography forgive me if I'm mistaken, but shooting the portra at 100iso means you're underexposing the scene by 2 stops? Isn't that equivalent to setting the iso of your M11 at 400 and under exposing by 2 stops. I make this point because you talk about the grain of the portra detracting from the image compared to the digital.
@@philipau3847 if he exposes at 100 that means he has overexposed by 2 stops. Get your stuff right. Do you know what you’re asking ? Why is this question important to you when you don’t know basics ?
@@baladino No need to be so rude. I mis-wrote and stand corrected, but that does not change my point about comparing like-for-like. Over-exposing helps, but it doesn't change the fact that Portra 400 is inherently a 400 speed film with more inherent grain than a 100 speed film. See Jules Vuotto's digital vs film comparison.
@@philipau3847 you haven’t corrected your comment yet
M6 film looks awesome! but I want them in videos.
Thanks! Not sure I understand the second part of your comment!
Should I buy a roll of Portra for $15.60, or should I buy an M11 for $8,995? I think it really puts Kodak price hikes into perspective. (both are valid choices)
But what about the m6 for $5,200 to put that $16.00 roll in…plus $12 scan ….and $10 develop 😅.
Excellent comparison. I shoot 99% digital for paid work and mostly film for everything else. I especially like the workshop photos on film, it just works.
Thanks Aaron! Always great to hear your insight.
I think if you’re going to shoot film you should just go medium format.
The M11 is wild. I know it gets a lot of hate from Leica fan boys, but it truly is unbelievable and very close to film. Even more than the M9 imo.
I ditched my MF cameras and stayed with 35mm film going 3 years now.
Am an artist and prefer 35mm over MF, cuz it has more soul and character. I don’t care about details.
I shoot both and LOVE IT.
I tought all the colors from the M11 were better. That said, both are fine.
I’m surprised Porta 400 looks that good. My guess was you should’ve used an ISO 100 film for best results, but as it turned out Portra 400 works really well.
Would love to go back to film as a supplement to my M10. But I simply can't afford it anymore. And I also must admit that the analog process is to slow for me. But I always find analog images more pleasing and "right"...
@Phillip Banes I really don't know. Maybe the grain, the more subtle nuances, the lack of digital sharpness. I have several Leica M and LFI magazines. Every time I see an analog image, it seems just is more "right" to me. But just a matter of taste of course.
great work, may i know how did you scan your film?
I really only shoot digital for autofocus, basketball/motorsports, birds in flight, and for timelapses where film would be ridiculous. Everything else is shot on film. I've recently moved to a more remote area where I need to develop everything myself so that may change...
I like this approach and have a similar compartmentalization with how and what I photograph. Thanks for watching!
Some very good work, just goes to show how good the film was and still is.
Thank you so very much! Film can absolutely hold its own, it’s why this video wasn’t called “why I ditched film for the m11”, it still has a place in my bag.
So why should I purchase a m11 now ?
Why shouldn’t you?
@@alexjohnsonphotography because my m3 with Portra 400 will give me nearly the same output 😂
As showed in your video
M6 is basically the sickest camera of all time.
I have one. It's just a box for film and mount for lens. You'll get the same photo's from M1/M2/M3/M4/M5/M6/M7/MA/MP nad other M mount cameras. It's always the lens.
@@matthewb21 I was about to say something similar in that the M6 is just a black box with a shutter. It has no bearing on the image it's all the film and the lens
@@BadVoodoo11 it's a great box, they all are. I had M2, MP and current M6. All are lovely machines, designed to do specific thing. They suck in everything else, but for what they are designed for - they are brilliant.
I’d love you to try my Portra 400 preset for Leica! Hit me up and I’ll send it to you if you want!
better compare with Kodak Gold 200, the best and most popular film. Porte 400 maybe good for art, not for natural photos and the colours always look unrealistic
IMO it makes NO sense to shoot film and then digitize it. Either shoot digital and do digital workflow or shoot film and print it. If you are not printing, there is no reason to shoot film. I shoot a lot of both film and digital but I never found a reason to go to the trouble and expense of shooting film and then scanning it - a digital camera will produce better results much faster/easier. OTOH, if you want to compare two black and white PRINTS, one shot digitally/printed and the other shot with film/enlarged in the darkroom on fiber paper, the result is (hugely) the opposite. Digital isn't even close.
I agree. Print from the negative, if you scan, use it only for evaluating which negatives to print.
I am shocked at the color you were getting from your M11... and not in a good way. I wonder if it is broken... those colors looked bad to me. The film was wonderful and easily my preference. I am likely buying the M11 monocrhome because I worry about the availability of film long term. So the color won't be a problem, but your particular M11 looks broken to my eyes.
of course it's not broken, the m11 just has a magenta shift
Why would you even compare these cameras???
For fun
M11 is nice and all but film is a vibe. Doesn't make sense for pro work as @AaronAnalog1 says but it just looks amazing. Just wished 35mm color film was easier to get in Europe.. Everything is either sold out or outrageously expensive. Sticking to black and white for now and hoping for the hype to cool down and get back into color film down the line.
Thanks for watching! It’s a vibe for sure, I find it works well in some professional settings, and more and more couples are seeking out photographers that are able to shoot both digital and film. Anecdotal of course!