lonemantis
Well-known
I work semi-professionally, in that most of my shooting is amateur but I take paid gigs enough that I cover the cost of my gear and make a bit of income. I'll always bring a backup camera, but I like the idea of my backup having different abilities that compliment my main shooter.
For example, I recently made the jump to M4/3 and my main camera for work is an OM-D with a set of zooms and primes. I do a lot of cinematography work for films as well, so I decided to get a GH2 as a backup and primary video camera, due to better video quality. It's also great for shooting two primes simultaneously without having to switch, because M4/3 has such an awesome selection of primes.
If either camera were to fail though, I feel like the other would be capable enough to finish the job adequately. If things go really pear-shaped though, I like to keep an E-PM1 stashed away as well just for peace of mind!
For example, I recently made the jump to M4/3 and my main camera for work is an OM-D with a set of zooms and primes. I do a lot of cinematography work for films as well, so I decided to get a GH2 as a backup and primary video camera, due to better video quality. It's also great for shooting two primes simultaneously without having to switch, because M4/3 has such an awesome selection of primes.
If either camera were to fail though, I feel like the other would be capable enough to finish the job adequately. If things go really pear-shaped though, I like to keep an E-PM1 stashed away as well just for peace of mind!
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Sorry, Chris but this statement is some of the brown soft stuff that comes from the cattle's behind.
If you care about your artistic ability to express yourself, does it depend on some small scale camera manufacturer that simply can't meet other big guy's price calculations?
If you are a RFF kind of guy and a Leica M guy for that matter, than just continue to use your two M6s. Going Leica M digital has implication on the workflow but not on your ability to earn your money.
I stand by what I said. I'm a professional, you are not. You have no clue what you're talking about. I do. See, actually BEING a professional means that I, not you, know what support professionals need from the manufacturers of our equipment, and what manufacturers are willing to give us that support. Leica doesn't give a f--k about professionals. Sorry, buddy. Its the facts. Every professional in this thread has said the same thing I did, for the same reasons.
icebear
Veteran
LOL, real man shoot film. You are right and know the facts.
I have no clue and enjoy my M9
.
Duane Pandorf
Well-known
I think you may not have read through the entire thread as the last entry from the OP says that he would delete files individually and occasionally had turned off the camera while it was still processing.
Wouldn't be any different than opening the back of your film camera before finishing the roll.
I believe the new M will handle these chores a little quicker than the 9.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
It is a joke, you fool.
You are right and know the facts.
I have no clue and enjoy my M9
Nope, you don't have a clue. When you start getting published, exhibited, being paid..THEN, and only then, can you tell professionals how professionals work. Until them, try shutting your mouth and listening. You might even learn something.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Something of an overstatement, Chris. It might be more accurate to say that because they don't sell cameras in the same quantities as CaNikon, there'd be little sense in massive professional support: there'd not be enough problems to keep a Leica 'pro centre' in business.
They've no more 'told professionals like us to go get f--ked' than Rolls Royce, Porsche or Maserati have told Ford drivers to 'get f--ked' -- and yes, I've known photographers who have owned all three, including a Porsche and a Maserati at the same time in one case. Admittedly they made their money from advertising photography, not journalism or fine art.
How, in your view, should Leica go about making it easier for professionals to use Leicas?
Cheers,
R.
sparrow6224
Well-known
Any professional running around using M9s for his/ her living would be nuts. The engineering required to get a full frame digital machine into an M-size (more or less, or more) body, means you just don't have the kind of machine Canon or Nikon can provide. Also, for reasons not entirely clear, the sensors, so far, have been not nearly as good. A Nikon D700/D3 from five years ago has better high ISO performance than an M9. Leica is no longer serving the professional market though doubtless it is still serving certain (limited number of) professionals of a more artistic inclination.
Does anyone know what Gilles Peress uses in the field?
Oh, and finally, I'm not a professional but I do know and have known some and where on earth does Icebear get the idea that a professional today can use film? Let us cure him of this idea. It is wildly inaccurate.
Does anyone know what Gilles Peress uses in the field?
Oh, and finally, I'm not a professional but I do know and have known some and where on earth does Icebear get the idea that a professional today can use film? Let us cure him of this idea. It is wildly inaccurate.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Vince,
(a) Well, I'm nuts, 'cos that's what I use. And, as you admit, I am not alone.
(b) There are, in fact, quite a few professionals still using film, in all kinds of areas.
'Professional photography' is a very broad church. Do not conflate the few you know with the whole trade, profession or calling; do not conflate hard news photography with all of photojournalism; do not conflate High Street hacks with high-end portraiture.
Cheers,
R.
(a) Well, I'm nuts, 'cos that's what I use. And, as you admit, I am not alone.
(b) There are, in fact, quite a few professionals still using film, in all kinds of areas.
'Professional photography' is a very broad church. Do not conflate the few you know with the whole trade, profession or calling; do not conflate hard news photography with all of photojournalism; do not conflate High Street hacks with high-end portraiture.
Cheers,
R.
Lss
Well-known
But how much do you just run around?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Timmyjoe
Veteran
For paying PJ work I rely on my Nikon D4 w/D700 back up, because it's pretty much a bulletproof set up and I can get my editors the pictures in literally minutes. For my personal PJ and documentary work, which tend to be more long term projects, I will use my film M bodies with Tri-X.
I picked up a used M8.2 a while ago and use it to shoot color, now that color film is harder to find and get processed. But I could never see relying on a Leica digital for paying PJ work. Just don't get the reliability sense from their digital gear, and I couldn't afford two bodies. And to be honest, auto-focus, zooms, and balanced fill flash really make deadline specific, fast paced PJ work a heck of a lot less stressful.
Best,
-Tim
I picked up a used M8.2 a while ago and use it to shoot color, now that color film is harder to find and get processed. But I could never see relying on a Leica digital for paying PJ work. Just don't get the reliability sense from their digital gear, and I couldn't afford two bodies. And to be honest, auto-focus, zooms, and balanced fill flash really make deadline specific, fast paced PJ work a heck of a lot less stressful.
Best,
-Tim
sanmich
Veteran
This discussion has so far being around the need for quick service/ back up.
As pointed by Bill, the second issue with the price of digital RF is the fact that even if you get light speed repairs, you still need to replace what are zoom lenses to SLRs by at least two bodies used together.
Admittedly, the issue of having several bodies for several kinds of film has been solved.
With all these in mind and the fact that it's only a hobby for me, it will be film Ms and Tri-X for me for the foreseeable future...
As pointed by Bill, the second issue with the price of digital RF is the fact that even if you get light speed repairs, you still need to replace what are zoom lenses to SLRs by at least two bodies used together.
Admittedly, the issue of having several bodies for several kinds of film has been solved.
With all these in mind and the fact that it's only a hobby for me, it will be film Ms and Tri-X for me for the foreseeable future...
willie_901
Veteran
To return to the back up issue... Practically all of my paid work must be done between 20 and 28 mm focal lengths. I use a 16-35/4 lens and carry a 17-35/2.8 lens as a back up.
Who else carries back ups for their bread and butter lens?
Who else carries back ups for their bread and butter lens?
Bill Pierce
Well-known
In the old days, rangefinder focusing with high speed wide angles was superior to the “groundglass” of the film SLR, especially if you sent your camera and lenses to a good repairman to have them null-nulled (the rangefinder and the lens cams adjusted until there was no measurable focusing error). But those days are past. Phase detection auto focus keeps getting better in new cameras/lenses, and contrast detection (Live View), dealing with the sensor image itself, can be scary good. So the rangefinder part of the rangefinder camera is not important to me. In some ways I think it is outmoded.
I said at the beginning of this thread that I would review my perspective on the digital Leica. What is now important to me in a digital Leica is, to a great extent, what was important to me in a film Leica - relatively small size and quiet operation, the bright line finder and good image quality in low light, something I suspect we will see in the new Leica M with a CMOS sensor.
But, face it, very few can afford two M bodies with two large aperture, fixed focal length lenses and a back up body just in case. I’m very happy putting my old bright line finders in the accessory shoes of a variety small, and considerably more economical, digital cameras. Often the viewfinder framing is not a perfect match to the sensor image, but that’s not a new or terribly disastrous thing to the bright line finder user (who probably has a rough idea of the framing before the camera even comes to his eye). And when it comes time to do the carefully composed shot, I can switch to Live View. To further my needs, most of the cameras I outfit this way have good high ISO performance.
No disrespect to Leica, one of the few cameras that changed photojournalism. But the current cameras are just too expensive for the kids that are coming up. They’re too expensive even for this old person. I sold mine.
------------------
You can’t talk about more economical Leica alternatives without mentioning the Fuji X-Pro. Unfortunately, Fuji has apparently done little to help the popular imaging software folks like Adobe and Capture One deal with their new sensor pattern. Right now, the in camera jpegs are superior in some respects to the raw files processed in SilkyPix, Lightroom and RPP. That’s very nice if you don’t have to make many adjustments to the image and don’t have an existing workflow. Fuji may have made a good camera, improved it with firmware updates and still have shot themselves in the foot. Time is running out.
I said at the beginning of this thread that I would review my perspective on the digital Leica. What is now important to me in a digital Leica is, to a great extent, what was important to me in a film Leica - relatively small size and quiet operation, the bright line finder and good image quality in low light, something I suspect we will see in the new Leica M with a CMOS sensor.
But, face it, very few can afford two M bodies with two large aperture, fixed focal length lenses and a back up body just in case. I’m very happy putting my old bright line finders in the accessory shoes of a variety small, and considerably more economical, digital cameras. Often the viewfinder framing is not a perfect match to the sensor image, but that’s not a new or terribly disastrous thing to the bright line finder user (who probably has a rough idea of the framing before the camera even comes to his eye). And when it comes time to do the carefully composed shot, I can switch to Live View. To further my needs, most of the cameras I outfit this way have good high ISO performance.
No disrespect to Leica, one of the few cameras that changed photojournalism. But the current cameras are just too expensive for the kids that are coming up. They’re too expensive even for this old person. I sold mine.
------------------
You can’t talk about more economical Leica alternatives without mentioning the Fuji X-Pro. Unfortunately, Fuji has apparently done little to help the popular imaging software folks like Adobe and Capture One deal with their new sensor pattern. Right now, the in camera jpegs are superior in some respects to the raw files processed in SilkyPix, Lightroom and RPP. That’s very nice if you don’t have to make many adjustments to the image and don’t have an existing workflow. Fuji may have made a good camera, improved it with firmware updates and still have shot themselves in the foot. Time is running out.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
When Gilles started using digital, I figured it was about time to start taking digital seriously and not just for meeting deadlines. That was a good many years back. I don’t know what Gilles is doing now, but he was shooting Canon DSLR’s the last time he ragged me for being behind the times.
icebear
Veteran
...
I have no clue and enjoy my M9
Hey Chris,
relax, I am not telling anyone how to work and I already admitted that I have no clue.
You learn a little more tolerance and try a little less "only I know the final truth". Life is more fun that way
.