How much will your Leica M9 be worth in 2112?

[bill t.]

Don't toss those old cameras.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18050363

[Rob C]

Don't toss those old cameras.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18050363

"Failing that, Leica could give up pretending to compete in the digital market and concentrate on its core strength: the making of unparalleled mechanical cameras and superb optical lenses suitable for photographers who realise the enduring quality of a 35mm film format that still offers results equivalent to around a 60 megapixel camera!"

Couldn't resist quoting from a link within the above link.

Rob C

[Ben Rubinstein]

60 megapixel? Would love to see that..

[bill t.]

I sometimes encounter people who claim that an old Kodachrome shot handheld at appallingly slow shutter speeds can be blown up to fill an entire wall, "and you can see the finest detail."  I doubt if many of them have ever tried it.  There are some interesting memes out there.  The "35mm film is equivalent to 60mp" meme has apparently just been launched, and it will be interesting to follow its progress.

I scanned a lot of 35mm Plux-X recently.  ASA 125, fine grain, good technique, good lenses.  To assign a digital equivalent, I would select my old 6 megapixel D70 at ISO 800.

I though something was wrong with the scanner, but when I checked vintage silver prints from the same negs I saw that the scanner was fine. 

And shots from a 6 x 11cm Brooks Veriwide camera could almost compete with the 5D2.

[Rhossydd]

To assign a digital equivalent, I would select my old 6 megapixel D70 at ISO 800.

That's pretty much the contention that really got LuLa's attention from photographers when Michael reviewed the D30/D60/10D

[bill t.]

And just prior to recently working with those old negs and prints again after so many years, my opinion of the quality available from 35mm film was much better than the tested fact.   Memories are often far too kind, which is usually a blessing.

[Rob C]

And just prior to recently working with those old negs and prints again after so many years, my opinion of the quality available from 35mm film was much better than the tested fact.   Memories are often far too kind, which is usually a blessing.

Can't argue abut negs/prints, but I do disagree with your views on Kodachrome.

Scanning old Kodachromes was what actually brought me into the digital world. I discovered that the old stuff was amazing. Far better than I had ever expected, to tell you the truth, because almost all of the large blow-ups from my Kodachromes had been printed four colour litho. Seeing them on a monitor or printed up, even in small parts, to A3+ on my HP B 9180 was a revelation: they were friggin’ wonderful. Nikon F and F2 with non-AI’d Nikkor prime lenses were and are still the business. Better, I never had to return any new lens because it was a ‘bad copy’ as they say today in mitigation.

As I’ve written here before, I discovered via that scanning that properly exposed Kodachrome gave me as good b/w prints as I ever got the traditional route, and yes, I was a pretty damned good printer in my day, so I do know of what I write.

A lot of advertising photography was done on 35mm cameras; it all depended on the subject matter and the mood etc. that was being projected. That’s not just a thing of the past, and small cameras are still being used a great deal – we can take Cooter’s word for that, even if it’s now digital, but the principle remains.

Rob C

[bill t.]

Well far be it from me to argue with empiricism.  A favorite 70's era pass time when jetting across the country on clear days was to shoot KII's out of the window, then examine them under the microscope that was in the light table room.  It was the early version of Google Satellite view, and the mother of all pixel peeping.  Even through the window pane Kodachrome was impressive.

And yes that old 105mm pre-AI lens is still a winner and the focus is wonderfully not-mushy.  But I have to say I believe most of those bad-copy reports can be traced to a loose nut just outside the viewfinder, abetted by the wonders of autofocus and unrealistic expectations.

In the day my only option for b&w from Kodachrome was to make internegs enlarged onto 4x5 Super-XX.  Smooth, rich, grain-free prints but rather crushed highlights.  Will have to try some Kodachrome scans.

[Rob C]

Well far be it from me to argue with empiricism.  A favorite 70's era pass time when jetting across the country on clear days was to shoot KII's out of the window, then examine them under the microscope that was in the light table room.  It was the early version of Google Satellite view, and the mother of all pixel peeping.  Even through the window pane Kodachrome was impressive.

And yes that old 105mm pre-AI lens is still a winner and the focus is wonderfully not-mushy.  But I have to say I believe most of those bad-copy reports can be traced to a loose nut just outside the viewfinder, abetted by the wonders of autofocus and unrealistic expectations.

In the day my only option for b&w from Kodachrome was to make internegs enlarged onto 4x5 Super-XX.  Smooth, rich, grain-free prints but rather crushed highlights.  Will have to try some Kodachrome scans.

Try to ensure you don't do it with slides with blown highlights! If anything, slightly underexposed shots carry a lot more detail for b/w conversion than appears the case at first glance. I guess that's the same idea that caused blockmakers/separation houses to wish for darker trannies!


Rob C