[Leica] Peter Does Oregon, with a Leica

[kleinp at BATTELLE.ORG (Klein, Peter A)]

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