Thanks for sharing this interesting comparison video. I own an M10, an M6 and an M3. Without a doubt the M10 pictures are miles ahead in technical terms to their film counterparts. However, the pics I get from the film Ms (with the same lenses) have soul, have character, have grain and have a mood which I just can’t get with digital. So I am increasingly shooting the film Ms again. Perhaps it is nostalgia.

I was surprised how "soft" the M4 shots were until I saw the lens on the M4. The f3.5 lens is far less sharp than the f2 summicron. I shot for years with 35mm summicron (70s model) on Tri-X and it was an unbelievably sharp lens, even at f2, shot at night, 1/8th of a second, hand-held. And it gave extraordinary rendering and "feel", which digital can never give. I lost both of my M6s and 3 Leica lenses -- first to robbery, the second I left in a cab in Rome about ten years ago, at which time I switched back to my Pentax LX. I recently adapted a Leica 50mm summicron R (70s model again, I love the Leica lenses made in the 70s, I think it is the best period for Leica lenses, with the most "soul", both R and M) and I am so happy to have one Leica lens back in my life, it's incredible the performance at f/2.

Unfortunately, the adversarial title 'Film vs Digital' perpetuates the erroneous belief that the two mediums are somehow in competition and that one must be 'better' than the other. This is a reflection of the digital age and the mania surrounding 'year on year' obsolescence. It's not 'film vs digital'. It's not even 'film or digital' but 'film *and* digital'. Gear doesn't matter. The medium doesn't matter. Only the image matters and whether it matches the vision of the photographer. Trying to form some comparison of film rendering and digital imaging in the way seen here also bypasses 'process' differences that make analogue such a pleasure. No 'chimping' the back of the camera after each exposure means staying 'in the moment' - there's no critiquing the image 'in camera' and no instant gratification. Film is slow, the analogue antithesis of modern life, which demands instant results. Film makes you think. Film is tactile. Film connects you to the earliest roots of photography, it's history and traditions. The bulk of the most iconic, lasting and powerful imaging to date have been created on film. I love digital photography but enjoy analogue too. They co-exist harmoniously side by side in my photography; Canon, Sigma and Olympus digital kit, alongside Leica, Canon and Konica film bodies. So, if I were forced to only have one camera and one lens to last the rest of my days? It'd be the Leica M3 and Summicron 50mm f2.

I’m using Leica MP and M11 and enjoy both equally

I shoot both and enjoy each immensely for their individual merits. I also process and scan my own film. Much less expensive and that is also part of the enjoyment. It is analogous to cooking my own meal from scratch compared to buying something already prepared.

Great effort! But, like most have said, not a fair comparison. ... however, even if you used the same lens and a sharp low grain film stock, the images will look different. Pixel peeping 35mm film has never been great because of grain. Pixel peepers like to look at medium format or large format film. ... But, unless you enlarge your photos to poster print size all the time, or crop heavily, then whats the point of pixel peeping film?

I don’t know what the point is to pixel peep a film vs digital file......obviously more resolution in digital.

Nice to know, but it would be a better comparison with a newer Summicron than the one you have on the M4, newer film, better scanning technique. I´m not a nostalgia warrior but that would be an awesome video. I´v had the bitter experience where i have scanned my negatives in a film lab with a Noritsu qss-32 and made them do it twice because i was unhappy with the results, i than scanned them at home with a Fujifilm x-t20, lightable and Negative Lab Pro, and my results where far far better.

I like both worlds. I still use my Dad's vintage Voigtländer from 1947 (6x9) and 1956 6x6 Rolleiflex aswell as my Leica IIIf with an Elmar 3.5/5 from 1936 or my M4 with a Summilux . Even the 4x5" Sinar sometimes is a pleasure to use. But I have to admit that many Handy's are fast and perfect for social web sharing and that my recently acquired M10 are terrific tools. What counts is the eye of the person behind the lens. For art or leisure photography, film most certainly has a role to play. For journalism or fashion and most professional photography, digital is now for sure.

please use drum scanner to scan your film and try other comparison. Also, use the analog way to print a large print and compare to the digital print

Interesting comparison, thanks. If you do another one, please scale down the film scan to the same resolution as the digital file. This is less apples to oranges, and would have the effect of cleaning up the film images somewhat.

They should make a hack for digital cameras called "film camera", which makes you pay with your credit card each 36 photos and adds blur and artificial grain on raw files. Oh: and makes random degradation on files every 10 years. Oh: and obviously prevents you to change ISO unless you've just paid for the last 36 pictures 😂

Although i have a number of digital camera's, i have an use film as well. Quite often, from a 1930's bakelite TLR to a Pentax Potmatic II, Canon EOS-1n, over the Zeiss Super Iconta and Kiev rangefinder IIIa & Kiev 60. I enjoy using film as i enjoy using the digital camera's. I do feel more satisfaction with a great shot made on an analog, old fully manual camera, using my lightmeter etc; it is more a process then a 'snap' (even if well composed and considered) with a digital camera. I also use many vintage lenses on the modern digital camera's.

Too bad you used expired film😅 You need to compensate for the loss of ISO and you also get more grain. But I do like your intention with the comparison 😊

Cool to see photos of Sydney my old home through your lens. (M4 shooter)

Great . Film couldn't compare with digital in term of resolution . Film is time and money consuming . Film Has 2 advantages over digital : 1.vintage and nostalgic look . 2. it force you to think about the shot before hitting the shutter button and it make you better photographer. Because of The second reason , we need to shoot some film awhile . But investment in Film photography is not logical .

Thanks for this nice video. Shooting film is completely diffrent form shooting digital. If you develop yourself it is possible to control the grainstructure depending on witch film and developer you use. The advantige using film is that I decide every time witch sensor I use with the diffrent filmstock. Filmcameras are dirt cheap. Its possible to shoot a lot of film before reaching the cost of an digital camera. You see I love shooting film because I can afford so many diffrent cameras. Form time to time I also shoot digital. But beeing in the darkroom printing pictures satisfies me more than edeting in lightroom. Best regards from germany Jens

would be cool to compare digital films simulations (like in VSCO or DXO film pack) on a M10 with the same film on a Leica M4 or M6...

This comparison isn't fair, you haven't used the same lens on both camera's.

Not a fair comparison: - you used expired film which will lose speed over 14 years unless you kept it frozen. A fairer comparison would have been to use fresh film. - using a more moderate ISO film (100-160) would have been fairer because ISO 400 is considered “fast” film and will have less detail and a fair bit more grain, - your M4 used a much older lens; would have been nice to see apples-to-apples shots with the same lens.

about prewiew i think every single lab do this in my country. Is there any different than Yours sir? Anyway i develop by myself

Not a good comparison at all... Perhaps if you used a slower film and a matching iso on the digital camera. I shoot 35mm - 8x10 film I'm professionally employed as a photographer. As a film/digital photographer - I'm looking for more than just "detail" although I find that film has plenty. When shooting with a Leica I'm enjoying the experience of shooting freely with a smaller camera. If my ultimate goal was "detail" I would pull out my 8x10 at every opportunity.

IMHO film should never be looked at on a screen at 100%, film is created to be seen as a print or projected, the complete picture. 35 mm as a format is even based as a format on that basis, see oskar barnack and the creation of his first Leica. Film is sharp when you look at the complete picture at the right viewing distance, which is all that rely matters in the end

Why use film if you are simply going to display images on a screen? It's much more work than digital with no benefit at all. However, if shooting black and white film it's a different deal IF you process in the darkroom and PRINT the images on fibre paper. Darkroom processing using fibre paper can produce an almost 3D feel to B&W prints that digital prints cannot match. But for any other purpose, digital is superior.

Thanks for the video and the comparison. But one culprit here is overlooked - different lenses were used on each camera assuming you have used the same lenses as shown in the video. It is very hard to beat digital with color. The only advantage color film has over digital is a certain film-specific saturation hard to emulate with digital. For a very similar digital resolution, larger film format has to be used. But film really shines for B&W - here the difference is more visible, and digital can't often match good B&W film. Two different media - film and digital. Both have their pros and cons. It depends on the shooting situation where one the the edge over the other. Examples IG @creative_lens_view

Saw the title and got enthusiastic, but you undersold yourself by shooting film that's been in the glove box for 15 years and not bothering to use one lens for both tests. Takes a lot of value off your efforts. Do it again with Portra 160 and get one frame drum scanned. Re your comments on cost: 36 exposure film is about £6 and the body will gain value. An M240 will depreciate about £3,500 in three years. In 40 years of shooting film, I've not spent a total of £3,500 on film and developing. I did lose £9,500 on my Leica S006, yikes!. Took nearly 3 years to find a buyer though !

People like me prefer the film look as it adds dimension to the image , detail is not that important, only enough to define the content. Detail can detract from the form and content of an image, usually does for fields such as street photography. Digital looks flat, even the best digital, because it has no artifacts underpinning it's output. Grain is the evidence of the underlying technology of film, the statement that the image is embedded in the very structure of the medium. But if detail and other qualities of the digital image are of greatest importance it is by far the better medium.

You should have done a comparison with fresh film not a 15 year expired roll

Sorry but this comparison is totally wrong. 1) you use a modern summilux 50 asph on m 240 , but old old 50 on film. What lens gives more details. Modern asph of course. 2) you opened 24 mp file of m240 and much much bigger film scan. And not even resized these files to same size. Resize them to equal and only after that we can compare details. I can bet that film will be better. So 2:0)) film wins. Next: Digitalising film is always leads to loosing details. In color. In sharpness. Etc etc. digital image from camera - strait digitalized already. What I mean: Print digital file from m240. Size 60+ cm And print file from film)) not digitalized but optically print. And you will see that film is better any way. Even with older lens. Better than 100mp camera.