Leica M10 D - The digital 'film' camera?

[Fraser Euan White]

I'm confused now!

Is the Leica M10 D not later than the F3 (F4-F6) or am I missing something?

It is Asha - but part of the reason I enjoy film cameras is the simplicity they can offer - the input comes from the user not a microprocessor. The end result is something I have created - not something that has been worked out to some degree by a computer and a computer program. If it is crap it is down to me but I have created it. The leica is much newer than the cameras I suggested but is not full of automation in use (granted a digital image is created by a computer) The results heavily depend on the user input (focus,exposure etc)

Maybe it goes back to what I loved as a child - I loved building Airfix kits, Mechano, Lego etc but lets face it the end results weren't that good - I could have bought a ready built Harrier jump jet model but it wouldn't have given the same satisfaction of building an Airfix Superscale all by myself.

Likewise the radio controlled aircraft I used to fly - I had created this model and it feels very similar to the satisfaction of creating a photograph - often the making of it was more fun than the result.

So, it is not just the recording media for me it is the creation/making of the photograph.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

Well I suppose we all have different reasons, but for me 40 years using a basic manual 35mm camera I appreciate\enjoy what a modern film camera can do and my Pentax S3, Minolta Srt and Praktica T5b? are not used much.
But strange though as I don't mind using the manual RB67.........

Hi Brian - we are all different Can I ask; if you appreciate what a modern film camera can do why don't you use digital where a modern digital camera is far more advanced and can do a lot more?

 

[excalibur2]

Hi Brian - we are all different Can I ask; if you appreciate what a modern film camera can do why don't you use digital where a modern digital camera is far more advanced and can do a lot more?

Well I do use a Canon compact digi (well it only works on close ups) for quick snaps of gear and bought a Nex 3 for low light shots in restaurants and similar..... cos people were blinded by my flashgun
And used my son's Canon 400D and it was boring, anyway no one has given me a good enough reason why I should drop film and go completely digi...if it ain't broke why fix it.

 

[Ste_S]

Hi Brian - we are all different Can I ask; if you appreciate what a modern film camera can do why don't you use digital where a modern digital camera is far more advanced and can do a lot more?

I'll also answer here as I like modern film cameras - I use them because I prefer the look of film to digital
I enjoy using both meterless mechanical manual cameras, as well as much more modern electronic cameras. Depends on what I'm shooting.
Mostly street at the moment where an electronic camera wins everytime.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

I'll also answer here as I like modern film cameras - I use them because I prefer the look of film to digital
I enjoy using both meterless mechanical manual cameras, as well as much more modern electronic cameras. Depends on what I'm shooting.
Mostly street at the moment where an electronic camera wins everytime.

Not so sure on the street comment.

All of my film photography these days is digital as I use a digital workflow for it and have not got a wet darkroom any more :-(

I don't 'buy this look of film' argument; I think most will scan negatives and even if they print it is a digital workflow. Yes a wet printed negative is fantastic - I did plenty of it but software can give the look of film from a digital camera to display on the web etc.

(Please don't read this as an argument; it is a discussion hoping to provoke conversation and thoughts as to what it is about film we love)

 

[excalibur2]

but software can give the look of film from a digital camera to display on the web et

erm if no film look why have software in a digi to create it

 

[Ste_S]

Not so sure on the street comment.

All of my film photography these days is digital as I use a digital workflow for it and have not got a wet darkroom any more :-(

I don't 'buy this look of film' argument; I think most will scan negatives and even if they print it is a digital workflow. Yes a wet printed negative is fantastic - I did plenty of it but software can give the look of film from a digital camera to display on the web etc.

(Please don't read this as an argument; it is a discussion hoping to provoke conversation and thoughts as to what it is about film we love)

*Shrugs* I'm looking at my project wall as we speak. It's 6x4 ink jet prints of film scans and digital files. I can see the difference prettily easily - the digital file prints are sharp and clean, the neg scan prints aren't quite as sharp and have noticeable grain - my preference. For film i mostly shoot Tri-X pushed to 1600.

Sure you can add faux grain and dial back the sharpness on digital, but it never really looks the same. Faux grain in particular looks nothing like real grain.