A lot of $$$

[quadtones]

Huss–By "meaningful" difference at "print size," I was not suggesting that the esthetic or the result were the same with digital vs film printing, but that the result, perceptually, was as satisfying for myself and folks who've purchased prints. To be sure, there are some who can tell the difference, although they're few. As it is, my workflow uses DxO film pack on digital files as a last step, and all digital workflow can hang side by side with analog-digital hybrid, if both digitally printed. While they may be distinguishable, they are equally acceptable up to me, up to 16x20.

PeterM–You have an excellent point, and for that reason, I, too have tended to skip a generation with gear. I realize that I don't have to rationalize gear from the standpoint of income production. Even so, the cost of constant "upgrade" has passed the point of rationalization on any level.

Oh, and that should have been "Veblen", not Veblein.

 

[Timmyjoe]

For work (photojournalism) I need to shoot digital, everyone needs everything yesterday, and it usually has a shelf life of only a few days to a week. For personal and book projects, where I am taking my time and trying to create images that will work as 16x20 prints, I still shoot film. One, because I can (as in I already have the cameras and lenses), and two, having grown up shooting film, there is something about knowing I have the negatives of images I really care about, so if the computer goes BOOM!! or the hard drives become un-readable, I still have the images in a form that I can do something with.

But I'm a Luddite I guess. Also, for the last six months I was looking at two different digital cameras, but the thought that they will be superseded by the next generation sometime in the next six months makes me hesitate in spending that kind of money. So I still shoot film in my "antique" film cameras.

Best,
-Tim

 

[uhoh7]

We’re still early in the development of these cameras, and, unlike film cameras, the passage of just a few years can bring major advances to the field that provide good reasons to buy new cameras and replace the old ones.

That's a broad brush and in subsequent posts by others I hear some serious "digital" pigeonholing.

Newsflash: It's the glass not the body. It always has been and it still is. M glass is the best in the world as an overall line, with only a few instances where Zeiss comes close.

If you have a body which can make the glass sing, film or digital, it's mature. That doesn't mean aspects may not improve in the future, like ISO performance etc. The M9 makes every M and LTM lens ever made look as good as it can on the screen or in print.

Why be distracted by endless discussions of fiddly features which are totally trumped by a simple body like the M9 and proper lens selection?

Sure the 240 does better at ISO, but the M9 will outperform any film camera ever made in low light, and with lenses like the CV 35/1.2 it can hang with anything in the dim.

Best advice for starting photographers, learn the glass and shoot it. The rest is hyperbole.

 

[KM-25]

That's a broad brush and in subsequent posts by others I hear some serious "digital" pigeonholing.

Newsflash: It's the glass not the body. It always has been and it still is. M glass is the best in the world as an overall line, with only a few instances where Zeiss comes close.

If you have a body which can make the glass sing, film or digital, it's mature. That doesn't mean aspects may not improve in the future, like ISO performance etc. The M9 makes every M and LTM lens ever made look as good as it can on the screen or in print.

Why be distracted by endless discussions of fiddly features which are totally trumped by a simple body like the M9 and proper lens selection?

Sure the 240 does better at ISO, but the M9 will outperform any film camera ever made in low light, and with lenses like the CV 35/1.2 it can hang with anything in the dim.

Best advice for starting photographers, learn the glass and shoot it. The rest is hyperbole.

** You forgot to say which ISO, so this looks confusing...

Also, you are returning serve with an equally broad stroke of a brush. In my experience, there are a lot of reasons to stay at least reasonably current in using digital technology.

And finally, I would love to challenge you to a dual in low light where the end goal is a 14" wide print. You can use that CV 35mm 1.2 with the M9 and I will use my M6 & 35mm 1.4 with Tmax 400 pushed two stops, silver print on Ilford warm tone fiber.......I think you might be surprised at the outcome.

 

[uhoh7]

** You forgot to say which ISO, so this looks confusing...

Also, you are returning serve with an equally broad stroke of a brush. In my experience, there are a lot of reasons to stay at least reasonably current in using digital technology.

And finally, I would love to challenge you to a dual in low light where the end goal is a 14" wide print. You can use that CV 35mm 1.2 with the M9 and I will use my M6 & 35mm 1.4 with Tmax 400 pushed two stops, silver print on Ilford warm tone fiber.......I think you might be surprised at the outcome.

Well I'm sure your stuff will be nicer even if you use a instamatic, but my own talent as a shooter aside:

I have no doubt you can make gorgeous work with the M6, I have one too. And obviously the film lovers are going to prefer it. But the M9 is mature enough for a host of journalists and fashion photogs, it makes gorgeous prints which can also be adjusted very easily. For detail, the M9 is certainly superior.

And the gets to the underlying premise for this thread; "oh digital, why bother? film is still best." Those new fangled digital cameras....always advancing, changing, ya need computers. Film is magic.

For people who must shoot film: more power to you. But let's not pretend it's the holy grail. What percentage of professional photography today is done on film?

Why is that? Mass ignorance?

Film lovers don't need the excuse that digital is not ready to keep shooting film. Just keep shooting it. Yes, digital is fully "ready" and firing on all cylinders, so what? Shoot what you love without excuse. If you don't like digital photography today you never will (Barring some "born again" personal revelation LOL)

 

[KM-25]

Well I'm sure your stuff will be nicer even if you use a instamatic, but my own talent as a shooter aside:

I have no doubt you can make gorgeous work with the M6, I have one too. And obviously the film lovers are going to prefer it. But the M9 is mature enough for a host of journalists and fashion photogs, it makes gorgeous prints which can also be adjusted very easily. For detail, the M9 is certainly superior.

And the gets to the underlying premise for this thread; "oh digital, why bother? film is still best." Those new fangled digital cameras....always advancing, changing, ya need computers. Film is magic.

For people who must shoot film: more power to you. But let's not pretend it's the holy grail. What percentage of professional photography today is done on film?

**Thanks but I was actually talking purely in terms of technical and tonal details in the final print.

**With my Leica gear I shoot exclusively with Tmax 400 pushed to 800 in them and what I found when looking at good sharp negs through my 15x loupe is that....I needed a more powerful loupe! So I now have a 22x loupe and even at ISO 800, the fine details are truly absurd with those lenses. So above ISO 800 on an M9 I am just not so sure it is as big a gap between the two as most would believe. With color I think it is a safe bet to hand the medal over to the M9, I actually plan on buying one in a few weeks.

But the bottom line....is that there is no bottom line. I shoot both mediums and likely always will, but I never choose digital over film because it is a better output...only because it is faster. As far as upgrade cycle, for me it is slowing down across the board for a variety of reasons and in the role that a digital Leica will serve in my work, the M9 will be just fine for some time to come.

 

[sevo]

the thought that they will be superseded by the next generation sometime in the next six months makes me hesitate in spending that kind of money. So I still shoot film in my "antique" film cameras.

Nothing is superseded that fast any more. If you curb your lust for the latest and greatest, five year old DSLRs will do perfectly well. Or even older. Most amateurs never print or view (outside pixel peeping) anything that makes use of 6MP. For most professionals, a D300 or D90 would still do for all the work they do (if they have reasonable clients or upsample to satisfy the client's irrational requirement for 24 MP files).

 

[KM-25]

For most professionals, a D300 or D90 would still do for all the work they do (if they have reasonable clients or upsample to satisfy the client's irrational requirement for 24 MP files).

To the perfectly cordial RFF member I met in person yesterday in VA who threw me under the virtual bus in front of the Leica rep at the breakfast table....the statement above is why I can sometimes come off as an a--hole on here.

To the quoted above.....very noisy above ISO 800 cropped sensor cameras being able to "still do" for most pros for **all** the work we do?......Seriously?

You could have at least tossed us a bit more than the table scraps above and said a D700...

 

[Kevcaster]

Leicas were always used as jewelry by the super-rich and the super-rich wannabes. The difference now is the larger media visibility of celebrity(plutography), and that Leica has a a modern[sleazy]marketing department now.

It may be the case that the dilettantes and vanity markets add sufficient demand for digital Leicas that we can enjoy them too!
I imagine (and only that, I'm not connected enough to 'know') there can be no justification for the production of Leica Q and T without a willing amateur market that fuels research, cosmetic innovation, sensor and lens volumes that finally produce development dollars for the M and S system.
In these posts there seems to be a consensus that digital has made the grade and that the image quality produced by most new cameras at the higher cost levels is good enough for most purposes.
The economic argument has been won by digital, the time required to produce images is much faster using a digital camera and the ease of distribution is beyond wild imaginings of the film era.
Film remains available to the craft market, is still a viable commercial medium, can be satisfying in many ways that digital cannot and has an attractive cache. Leica is still in business and makes great cameras in a sector all it's own.

We can all be happy.

 

[Michael Markey]

This whole thread seems to be about change and how some folk don`t like it.
Especially when it costs them money.

Nobody is forcing people to buy anything though so I can`t really understand the angst.

As far as the pixel /size of print argument , I find that rather spurious.
Most people I would imagine only view their stuff on screen these days and I can certainly see the difference there between my 6mp Pany and my Merrills.

 

[sevo]

To the quoted above.....very noisy above ISO 800 cropped sensor cameras being able to "still do" for most pros?......Seriously?

You could have at least tossed us a bit more than the table scraps above and said a D700...

The vast majority of people living on photography are no press photographers, and will use tripods and lights.

In technical terms the bulk of commercial photographic work is shot at base speed (I.e. mostly ISO100) and printed to less than 2MP target resolution.

Arguably, high resolution and file quality (and presenting proportionally expensive tools) often is a selling point for professional photographers, but most of the time that is irrational - mentioning that the client could blow up the originally stamp-size portrait of the branch manager or barely bigger product shot from the corporate brochure to mural size may get you the job thanks to the client's vanity, but that option is rarely ever put into reality.

 

[KM-25]

The vast majority of people living on photography are no press photographers, and will use tripods and lights.

In technical terms the bulk of commercial photographic work is shot at base speed (I.e. mostly ISO100) and printed to less than 2MP target resolution.

Arguably, high resolution and file quality (and presenting proportionally expensive tools) often is a selling point for professional photographers, but most of the time that is irrational - mentioning that the client could blow up the originally stamp-size portrait of the branch manager or barely bigger product shot from the corporate brochure to mural size may get you the job thanks to the client's vanity, but that option is rarely ever put into reality.

I don't mean to sound rude or dismissive of your projections of this...but what is your basis for these opinions?

Because it sounds as if you are really only referencing low end market pros...who are going out of business by the dozens per day as their markets dry up as we type.

The only pros I know of besides my self who are truly earning a full time living off of photography are in either the mid or high end markets and have drastically different working methods and client end use than what you claim to have insight to.

 

[FranZ]

My personal answer for Bill's question; I buy all my gear 2nd hand so my depreciation is a lot less.
An other thought, my main investment is in lenses, which I seldom sell.

 

[Corran]

KM-25, forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't you mostly working as an "art" photographer, selling prints? Or am I wrong?

There's vastly different needs and expectations between photojournalists, event/wedding photographers, portrait/studio work, art/gallery sales, etc.

Concurrently, different gear may be called for or preferred for each different type of work / scenario.

I'm not going to debate it heavily here, but I have to object somewhat to your claim that 35mm TMY pushed two stops will have more technical quality than a FF camera properly processed. It just won't - though the aesthetic quality may be preferred by some, me included.

 

[thirtyfivefifty]

I remember in college seeing the original Canon Digital Rebel. I wasn't interested in photography then until after I graduated while playing with my parents' point and shoot and 35mm SLR. Those were weird times until about the Canon EOS 5D Mark II came into existence. Kind of like Apple transitioning to Intel chips and didn't feel right until Core 2 Duo came out. 2010 is when I would say digital came out of infancy when the Fuji X-Series was announced. I thought that some interesting stuff was going to come out in a hurry. Personally, when the Canon EOS 5D Mark III came out, I said, "Finally..." Digital photography today is always exciting because I can capture and create my vision better than any point prior. The technology, the things you could do, that I thought were impossible (or were a great pain) with film is now just a simple action in my workflow.

 

[Corran]

Simple is not always better.

 

[KM-25]

KM-25, forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't you mostly working as an "art" photographer, selling prints? Or am I wrong?

There's vastly different needs and expectations between photojournalists, event/wedding photographers, portrait/studio work, art/gallery sales, etc.

Concurrently, different gear may be called for or preferred for each different type of work / scenario.

I'm not going to debate it heavily here, but I have to object somewhat to your claim that 35mm TMY pushed two stops will have more technical quality than a FF camera properly processed. It just won't - though the aesthetic quality may be preferred by some, me included.

Yes, working towards mostly doing fine art black and white but I still do and love to do journalism / documentary and have long time commercial clients.

I know it can be varied but I can not tell you how many times something that was originally commissioned for web/social has been used down the road much, much larger. So I was just wondering where Sevo got the reference point because using that oft misused term "Most" or "all" was suspiciuosly out of place here.

As for you dissagreeing about the output comparison I was giving.....go back and read what I said again, because I think you missed that this is a specific case with specific cameras.

I guess it just gets old when people make claims in near or full blanket terms that from where I sit are a complete departure from reality.

Anyone who uses phrases that try to place the duties of the current form of a professional photographer in a "majority" situation clearly do not understand that there is no "Most" or "Nearly All" in 2015....those guys are going out of business....fast.

 

[furcafe]

Sorry, didn't mean to throw anybody under the bus, real or virtual! 😉

I also happen to agree w/you on this point. In my experience, it's the working pros who have to keep up w/the latest tech because competition is fierce & their clients are the most demanding.

To the perfectly cordial RFF member I met in person yesterday in VA who threw me under the virtual bus in front of the Leica rep at the breakfast table....the statement above is why I can sometimes come off as an a--hole on here.

To the quoted above.....very noisy above ISO 800 cropped sensor cameras being able to "still do" for most pros for **all** the work we do?......Seriously?

You could have at least tossed us a bit more than the table scraps above and said a D700...

 

[KM-25]

Sorry, didn't mean to throw anybody under the bus, real or virtual! 😉

I also happen to agree w/you on this point. In my experience, it's the working pros who have to keep up w/the latest tech because competition is fierce & their clients are the most demanding.

I figured you'd like that one....left it up to you to "out" your self...😉

It's all over the map, I take no issue with someone saying why they only need certain levels of tools to accomplish a task and then another person saying they need everything the camera makers can throw at them. I think these kinds of topics are much better off if the examples given have a bit more substance of origin than "Most" or "All" coming from who knows where.

I dunno Chris...maybe I can keep this ID and just evolve into the non-jerk. In any case, breakfast with folks and the festival it self was how I really like to live in the photo communities. I'll bring my wife next year.

Back on topic....

Bill, without pointing fingers of any kind of disdain, I wonder sometimes if these types of questions are not just put here to stoke fires that come and go elsewhere. I think if you chimed in more after your opening statement it might not appear as such to me anyway.

I struggle a tiny bit with the Leica / jewelry thing, but at least it keeps them around and in as good of financial health as the market allows. No one has to buy the Lenny Kravits version, there are plenty of options in the Leica world to use, the product of having a 100+ year old company sticking to their roots while they try to innovate at the same time.

 

[uhoh7]

My personal answer for Bill's question; I buy all my gear 2nd hand so my depreciation is a lot less.
An other thought, my main investment is in lenses, which I seldom sell.

Me too. The crying about cost is now baseless. A superb digital body can be had, to shoot M and LTM for 1500 today:

1) M8
2) Sony A7 + Sensor Mod

As noted one can find a perfect M9 for around 3K, sporting a fresh sensor. Used 240: 4200. Considering resale value this is no more than many other FF options.

Price a good mountain bike or motorcycle.

I think we should all find the solutions which work and inspire. If that's film, I understand. Just don't pretend "digital isn't mature" or affordable, in general.

The difference is that film is static and won't get any better. Digital has tons of money going into it, so we do see things like the new backlit Sony sensor, and Leica Q EVF.

But in daylight, an M9 and 28cron will smoke the Q and it's heavy native distortion. A 2009 camera is still one of very best in world. Now who's mature?