Advice...? M9 or M43...? Longevity?

F

fmiller4

Newbie
Local time
12:16 AM
Joined
Nov 8, 2011
Messages
5
I'm on the horns of a dilemma and would appreciate your thoughts.

I have a Zeiss ZM body, a ZM 50f2, a ZM 35 f2, and a Summicron 90f2.

I also have a Mamiya 7 outfit and find that I prefer the images I'm getting from it to the 35mm. (I scan my film and work in PS)

I think if I'm going to go through the bother of shooting film (all my film stuff is bw) I'd like it to be medium format. Otherwise, I'd rather be shooting digital (less clean up, etc)


Should I sell the 35mm stuff and use the money toward newer micro four thirds stuff (i.e. the Oly 75mm 1.8)...?

OR

Suck it up and buy a used M9 to allow me to use the lenses I have...?
I lust after a monochrom or the new M, but really can't afford it...

I realize this is a squirrelly question with no single right answer... but I'd like to hear your thoughts...

Maybe one way to approach it is - do you think a digital Leica M is a LONG term investment? People are still using their M3's (or their IIIfs!) - will the new M's be as long-lasting?

f
 
fmiller4 said:
I'm on the horns of a dilemma and would appreciate your thoughts.

I have a Zeiss ZM body, a ZM 50f2, a ZM 35 f2, and a Summicron 90f2.

I also have a Mamiya 7 outfit and find that I prefer the images I'm getting from it to the 35mm. (I scan my film and work in PS)

I think if I'm going to go through the bother of shooting film (all my film stuff is bw) I'd like it to be medium format. Otherwise, I'd rather be shooting digital (less clean up, etc)


Should I sell the 35mm stuff and use the money toward newer micro four thirds stuff (i.e. the Oly 75mm 1.8)...?

OR

Suck it up and buy a used M9 to allow me to use the lenses I have...?
I lust after a monochrom or the new M, but really can't afford it...

I realize this is a squirrelly question with no single right answer... but I'd like to hear your thoughts...

Maybe one way to approach it is - do you think a digital Leica M is a LONG term investment? People are still using their M3's (or their IIIfs!) - will the new M's be as long-lasting?

f
Click to expand...

Depends on what you consider a long term investment.
Example a used Zeiss IKON cost about $900 to $1200 at KEH while a new M+2 extra batteries cost about $7330. Which give us a difference of between $6130 and $6430. Now you said you only shoot B&W so lets use a figure of $5 per roll for film and chemicals. So for $6430 you could shoot and process approx 1286 rolls of 35mm B&W film or 46296 frames.
Now lets look at from a time stand point
1 roll a week= 24 years
2 rolls a week=12 years
4 rolls a week= 6 years
Of this leave the question, that if a Digital M was only used to shoot 36 frames a week would it still be operational after 24 years.
* whither you could still get batteries or access the files in 24 years is of course another question :)

Note: Realize that there's a huge difference between coming up with $7000 at one time or say $240-250 per month for 3years based on 10% vs spending $5, 10, or even $20 a week on film.
 
As side note my Nephew is using my old Canon D30, which is over 10 years old for his high school PJ class. So I'd say that speak pretty well about the longevity of digital cameras.
 
Suck it up and pick up an M9. The signal-to-noise ratio of the M9 will not limit you as you are satisfied using film.
 
I shot film exclusively for a year and realized it cost me almost the price of a used M9, so I bought a new one, and sold my film cameras Zeiss ikon and M6.
 
No digital camera is an investment, financially speaking. In terms of literally how long it will last, that's anyone's guess. The new M is unproven, it may last very well, it may not.

However, all electronic components have a lifespan. That lifespan can be a long time, but they WILL fail. When they do fail, chances are that microchip will be out of production, and the device is basically not repairable.

On the plus side, you've not been buying film all that time.

So, long term investment? For money,no. For actual use? Maybe.
 
Thanks for your insights.

I'm definitely looking more for use than $$$ in terms of 'long-term investment'...

So... as I'm looking at the images I see for the Olympus EM5 online, which are pretty stunning, I find myself asking if it's better to buy a new camera every couple years or, spending much more, get one that will last 10+ years. I'm sure (well, mostly sure) an M9 will deliver a better image... but it's definitely not a night-vs-day kind of thing.

So... judging by the responses... it seems that dumping the film camera is a no-brainer... but it also seems that there's no way to really know if the M9 will be a working camera in 10 years... (and it will almost certainly not be one that can be repaired)...

So, going by that, it would seem to make sense to go the cheaper route and just accept that a body won't last as long....

Am I missing something?
 
Probably out of scope but my thoughts on the EM5 are that you need the right lenses to make it shine. The primes like the Panasonic 25/1.4 and the Oly 12mm and 75mm seem very nice. The kit zooms, not so much. Some sample shots look like a p&s, others just shine. As a platform m43 will probably be around in 10 years, so you'll be able to replace the bodies at a presumably reasonable cost. But the OMD and M9 are such different cameras and different user experiences. If using a rangefinder isn't essential to you then I would look elsewhere, it's probably not worth the cost.
 
fmiller4 said:
Thanks for your insights.

I'm definitely looking more for use than $$$ in terms of 'long-term investment'...

So... as I'm looking at the images I see for the Olympus EM5 online, which are pretty stunning, I find myself asking if it's better to buy a new camera every couple years or, spending much more, get one that will last 10+ years. I'm sure (well, mostly sure) an M9 will deliver a better image... but it's definitely not a night-vs-day kind of thing.

So... judging by the responses... it seems that dumping the film camera is a no-brainer... but it also seems that there's no way to really know if the M9 will be a working camera in 10 years... (and it will almost certainly not be one that can be repaired)...

So, going by that, it would seem to make sense to go the cheaper route and just accept that a body won't last as long....

Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

"Long term" is always a relative thing. Even in the film days, new camera bodies with improvements surfaced every couple of years and it was always up to you to decide whether the improvements were an advantage worth paying form. The digital era in photography is still quite young, there's been an unforeseen amount of development progress in a very very short period of time driving people to seek newer and newer equipment on a fast timetable.

I think that thinking in the "decade plus" time span with even the top end of today's digital cameras is probably stretching the notion a bit.

That said, there are some cameras that seem to keep on going regardless of their age. Given the short span of digital camera history, a decade is an eternity but cameras like the Olympus E-1 (mine will be 10 in October) are still excellent performers if wholly obsoleted by their successor models. I think the same will be true of the Leica M8 and M9 models ... even though the new M and MM go beyond the M9 either in specific or in broad-based ways, the M9 certainly has staying power for another half to full decade of regular use. That seems to be Leica's target, based on comments in various interviews.

The question is, when considering moving to cameras like the (excellent) Olympus E-M5, will the furious pace of development continue? And what will remain viable after the next cycle or two? When buying Leica gear, it's the lenses which last and last ... and they last and last mostly because they are simple in mechanical design and the bodies are relatively agnostic about what lens can be fitted. A Micro-FourThirds camera and lens is an integrated system, with control of the lens quite dependent upon the body features. If development pushed obsolescence on existing lenses due to lens mount and control improvements, the turnover to 'the next wave' ends up costing almost as much as buying an updated, higher end M body.

My own path through all this stuff has partially been pushed by my career needs and partially by my own personal predilections. At the end of the film era, I was pretty much set with Nikon SLR gear and Leica M RF gear working side by side, Medium Format (Rolleiflex, Hasselblad, Mamiya and Fuji) beyond that. I moved first into digital capture when I saw the quality step up to equal and surpass 35mm film, then business and career motivations pushed me to concentrate entirely on digital capture and image processing for seven years (2004 to 2011). Now that I've moved my career development to another arena, I'm back to doing photography for my personal desires in art and expression—and I find I have plenty of time to work film. And I enjoy it, not because it is "better" or "worse" than digital capture but because it is what it is—full of defects and limitations—which I enjoy the challenge of using to expressive advantage.

Oof, I'm rambling this morning ... ;-)

G
 
When I had the OMD I was also shooting with my Mamiya 645. That was the biggest mistake...

Just like you prefer the look of MF over 35mm, the 'look' from m4/3 is very different from a FF camera let along a medium format camera. Only thing I like about m4/3 is the 4:3 aspect ratio (same as MF 645).

I don't think I will be happy with any thing smaller than a FF having used medium format digital backs. So now I have a M9 as my compact camera.
 
I say go for the M9. I, like you, was hesitant to take the plunge, but I'm happy I did. Unlike my 5DII, I find the M9 just about totally satisfying. The only thing it can't do is match film's black and white, but it sounds like you're prepared for that. As for how long the M9 will last...I don't know.
 
fmiller4 said:
Thanks for your insights.

I'm definitely looking more for use than $$$ in terms of 'long-term investment'...

So... as I'm looking at the images I see for the Olympus EM5 online, which are pretty stunning, I find myself asking if it's better to buy a new camera every couple years or, spending much more, get one that will last 10+ years. I'm sure (well, mostly sure) an M9 will deliver a better image... but it's definitely not a night-vs-day kind of thing.

So... judging by the responses... it seems that dumping the film camera is a no-brainer... but it also seems that there's no way to really know if the M9 will be a working camera in 10 years... (and it will almost certainly not be one that can be repaired)...
...
Click to expand...

If everything works normal, you should be able to take photos with EM5 or the M9 in 10 years. When it comes to repairs then I believe that the M9 is easier to repair than the EM5 just because it's the easier construction and Leica has repair in mind when building things.
 
Of course you'll have a bias for digital cameras in the DIGITAL M forum!

I think that digital cameras are a vice best avoided.

If you currently use film and developing and printing are not a hassle for you, why bother changing to digital? It's definitely not going to save you any money. You'll buy an M9 for however many thousand dollars, and in 5 or 10 years it'll be worth 1/3rd what you paid for it, it may not be serviceable if something on it breaks, and you'll be back to asking people on this forum if you should upgrade to whatever the latest model is for X,000$

Look at the M8, if certain parts on it break you're out of luck - Leica gives you an option to upgrade to a different camera, of course costing you thousands of dollars in the process.

Your film camera will still be worth the same price it's worth now, its parts will probably ALL still work and even if they break will likely be easily replaceable since they're more simple. You'll never come here asking if you should upgrade your camera to a digital one because for all those years the quality of the images will still be the same - high quality.

Digital is very convenient but it's a horrible money trap. (I own digital cameras but consider them a waste of money, they'll all be dead and my film bodies will live nearly forever). Put your money toward a drum scanner if you really want to improve quality and lose lots of money doing it.
 
I'd say that, since around the time that the 5Dii/A900/D3x and M9 (a little later) were released, the compulsion of upgrading image quality all of the time has waned a bit. These cameras really stepped it up in terms of 13x19 and larger print quality, and, while digital sensor IQ is still improving every year, I see upgrading as not much different than deciding that you want to switch your slide film with negative film, because it has more DR, or whatever. Different, but not necessarily a lot better.

The beauty of the M9 is that it is super compact, handles like an M, yet has resolution nearing what you'll get with medium format film, especially if you're not drum scanning or using an Imacon. Of course, it's still a bit of an apples and oranges comparison, because MF film and the M9 output does look a bit different, but I'm ok with the compromise. My medium format film cameras don't get a lot of use, these days.

I plan on shooting my M9 five more years, easy, and there's every indication that Leica will support fixing it for that long. Famous last words... :rolleyes:


p.s. more so than improving IQ, it seems the big digital trend in recent years has been to find acceptable IQ in a smaller package. That's why I got rid of my A900, and the M9 was just the ticket, for me (I bought my M9 used at a pretty low price)
 
paradoxbox said:
Of course you'll have a bias for digital cameras in the DIGITAL M forum!

I think that digital cameras are a vice best avoided.

If you currently use film and developing and printing are not a hassle for you, why bother changing to digital? It's definitely not going to save you any money. You'll buy an M9 for however many thousand dollars, and in 5 or 10 years it'll be worth 1/3rd what you paid for it, it may not be serviceable if something on it breaks, and you'll be back to asking people on this forum if you should upgrade to whatever the latest model is for X,000$

Look at the M8, if certain parts on it break you're out of luck - Leica gives you an option to upgrade to a different camera, of course costing you thousands of dollars in the process.

Your film camera will still be worth the same price it's worth now, its parts will probably ALL still work and even if they break will likely be easily replaceable since they're more simple. You'll never come here asking if you should upgrade your camera to a digital one because for all those years the quality of the images will still be the same - high quality.

Digital is very convenient but it's a horrible money trap. (I own digital cameras but consider them a waste of money, they'll all be dead and my film bodies will live nearly forever). Put your money toward a drum scanner if you really want to improve quality and lose lots of money doing it.
Click to expand...
Depends on how much you shoot - I used to spend more on film and developing and printing than any digital camera can depreciate.
The camera body is but a small part of the expenditure anyway - my lenses have cost far more. And quality-wise; well, I do indeed have prints that are clearly better than the current digital products - but they are Cibachrome prints I pulled from 645 format slides. I fear 135 has fallen by the wayside by now.
 
FWIW, I just got done listening to this great podcast with Constantine Manos, and he talks a lot about switching to color and digital. He says that around 30 (if I remember correctly) of his photos in his book American Color 2 are digital M shots, mixed in with Kodachrome, and he challenges anyone to decipher which is which. http://www.digitalpodcast.com/items/6710262
 
Hi Douglas,

thanks for sharing. I listened to the entire thing which got a bit boring at times but overall it is very interesting.
Some very valid statements about technically superior prints (fine art) but boring subjects...they got some mountains in the background;).
 
No problemo, Klaus. I thought it was a good listen, too. I also found it interesting that Constantine doesn't carry a camera around normally, except when purposefully going out to shoot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom