"But film is subject to costs and availability, not to mention chemical waste and storage. Unless you're a dedicated film shooter buying bulk reels, loading your own rolls and buying bulk chems, not to mention enjoying the dev process, it doesn't seem economically viable as a daily/companion camera."
That's quite a slanted view Archiver, but of course we each have our own biases here. So it's more economical to buy a $9,000 digital Leica, than to buy rolls of film for the current price of a cappuccino?
For me, yes.
Maybe things are different outside of Australia, but here, a 36exp roll of Portra is $30 AUD. That's not a cappucino, that's an indulgent lunch for one, a McDonald's meal for two, a trade paperback book, a third a tank of petrol, barely enough groceries to last one person a week. Add dev/scan and that's another $20 per roll at a lab. Fuji 400 is $21. Ektar 100 is $30. I look back at the 2000s when you could pick up a roll of XTRA400 for less than $10, and get dev/scan/print for $20.
I'm a compulsive button pusher, so I shoot around anywhere between 50-300 images when I'm out for a day. On a big photo walk last year, I shot about 850 images. With slower cameras like the Sigma DP1 and Leica M9, I still average 500 images on a dedicated photo day.
Film would make such output ludicrously expensive, and decrease my learning curve which is largely powered by constant experimentation. Film would cause me to drastically lower the documentation effect I aim for, and while it may result in more keepers, I get less of the memory archiving process.
At today's prices, $9000 buys 180 rolls of Portra plus dev and scan. That's 6660 images if you allow for 37 exposures, because you'll often get an extra frame or two. That gives 15 rolls a film a month, BUT that's $9000 spent over the course of a year.
My M9 was $9300 in 2010 and has shot over 75,000 images, averaging 4600 per year. Of course, there's hard drive storage, so add another $1800 over the course of sixteen years. I'd never get this freedom with film.
And I don't necessarily need a $9000 digital Leica body to do this; relatively inexpensive micro four thirds and even full frame bodies can be had for a fraction of the cost, $800-1200 AUD for anything up to a Nikon D750. Then it's a couple of memory cards and a new hard drive every few years, and you've got nearly infinite photos for the next 15-20 years at least.
We could do the sums another way. A Nikon FM2 with decent 24/2.8 35/2 and 50/1.4 will cost around $1800-2000 AUD from a reputable secondhand store. That leaves $7000 for film/dev/scan from the hypothetical $9000 digital Leica budget, which may produce less over time if film prices continue to rise. Say you shoot a roll a month, that's only $50 per month, which sounds decent. But you get far less images, and that's not where it's at for me. I need volume and coverage. I realize that my use case is on the right hand side of the bell curve, but that's how I see it.
The hypocrisy of all this is that I'm back to considering another film M body, perhaps a M6 or even a well kept M4-P, which would theoretically outlast any digital camera I own. If was going for broke in a 'camera for life', I'd prefer a new or low mileage camera, perhaps a MP or M-A to minimize electronic issues. And then I'm up to the price of a secondhand digital M body again. Plus $50 per roll. Hahaha! 😂
To the subject... I prefer to print from larger negative, and as much as I have enjoyed LF photography....my eye is most alive when i travel.....so the Rolleiflex is close to my heart, but I've used Leicas for decades and the tactile elements of the camera itself play a part here. So if I combine those things, then this 1968 M4 would be my lifetime camera...
View attachment 4887589View attachment 4887618
That M4 is a work of art. It bears the signs of use so well, you can tell this is a well loved camera.
