Digital Leica M vs Film M bodies

J

jojoman2

Guest
I'm weighing the pros and cons of each.

Cons to digital--So far I've come up with, and this is the main factor that prevents me from going digital, DIGITAL ROT. Also, they are damn expensive.

Knowing that I'll need to upgrade the digital down in three or four years is a huge turnoff. With film I know I'll have it for as long as I'm into film (assuming photographic tragedy leaves me be).

Also, the shutter is louder than film (at least on the M8 I used), like almost SLR loud.

Pros to digital-- Very clean results, color, ease of processing on computer.

FILM-- Pros: shooting film in general is pleasing to me. The body won't need upgrading except when a CLA is needed. Advancing the film is a huge reward in my book, so smooth. Scanning film is pretty effective.

Cons-- more labor intensive than digital. Cost of film. Availability of film in other countries. Exposed rolls in other countries need to be carried around until I return home to develop (how do you guys do that, do you mail or carry your exposed rolls when traveling?)
 
I don't see the decision as primarily cost-based. (You will pay in either case because neither film nor digital photography is an inexpensive activity, especially if you shoot a lot.)

I think it's need-based. If you need what digital offers - ease and speed of workflow (especially true for high volume shooting), better low light performance, etc - then one buys in. If you don't, stay with what you have.

Your point about travelling and shooting film is a good one. I understand that's why Salgado moved to digital capture. I prefer to travel and shoot with digital gear, as long as I have access to electricity, of course.
 
This is a no brainer to me IF you can deal with the cost and time investment of film processing, scanning, and the quality & output of film. A film M can last you a lifetime of happy shooting with maybe some occasional maintenance AND hold it's value quite well.

A digital body on the other hand is a consumer electronic item that obsoletes and depreciates continuously while you own it. I find this frustrating in comparison to film cameras, but the obvious reasons to go digital are the clean files, easy digital workflow... just as you mention.

I know I wouldn't be happy with an all film workflow myself. But if I could be, I'd be more than happy to stay off the digital upgrade train! One more option to consider is shooting a film M alongside a cheaper digital camera (fixed lens compact, mirrorless camera to adapt the M lenses, or whatever.)
 
MCTuomey said:
I don't see the decision as primarily cost-based. (You will pay in either case because neither film nor digital photography is an inexpensive activity, especially if you shoot a lot.)

[...]
Click to expand...

Also great points. Film can definitely get expensive, and the more you shoot the more costly it gets. If you develop and scan your own it's considerably cheaper, but you can easily spend hundreds or thousands a year on film and processing. Photography is not a great hobby for the faint of heart - or light of wallet! :p
 
I don't have any idea what
digital rot
Click to expand...
means.

Film photography is also expensive... unless one's uses a 100% analog workflow. The money is just spent differently.

In general I enjoy using film cameras more than I enjoy using digital cameras. Since I've been on RFF, the difference in enjoyment between film bodies and certain digital bodies has decreased tremendously (for me anyway.)
 
Cost-wise, there's not much difference. It's just a different phasing of the same expense (you front-load your expenses with a digital camera whereas you more evenly distribute costs with film over the years).

Film vs digital is an artistic choice (unless you are professional).
 
I'm an old B&W film only guy who bought a MM9 2 1/2 years ago. For me buying my Monochrom did more to advance my photography than any other money I spent, except maybe the tuition I paid to go to art school in the 70's.

I still shoot a lot of film (135 and 120), and as far as expense, I own many analog film cameras and have a lot more money tied up into analog film cameras than my MM9 and D3X.

On the other hand this year digital printing has become very expensive so far this year. So far since January I spent $3.7K on just paper and ink alone.

The point made above in another post is that both digital and analog can get mighty expensive. Basically all my disposable income goes into supporting an addiction to high IQ.

Do yourself a favor and just think of digital and analog as two seperate mediums. Nothing wrong with shooting either, and you will not waste time arguing which is better or superior. Also do whatever is good for you. In my case I love both and have no clear favorite. Understand that I make negatives for wet printing, and I don't scan. In my case I keep analog-analog and digital-digital, although I do get wet prints made from my Monochrome files from Digital Silver Imaging.

Cal
 
Digital Ms are the only cameras to satisfy yourself, which is something more expensive than pictures most of the modern cameras will give.

Old digital M (8 and 9) are not worth of their current price if you judge it by the cost and output. My older Canon 5D with 50L leaves in the dust those old Ms and more expensive Leica 50mm primes. It is fast and easy to use. But it is heavy, bulky and ugly.

New digital Ms are better for high ISO only, but at incredibly higher price.
Here is no practical reason for digital M.
You could satisfy typical customers, friends and your family with FF Sony or Fuji croppers if you can't handle DSLRs.

M is perfect label and glorious nimb which is useful for your marketing. "I'm the special, I'm Pro with Leica". It might be very helpful with marketing of yourself.

Yesterday I went to Canada Day event with M4-2 only. Just for my pleasure. It was loaded with two kinds of old, cheap cinefilm. One came out OK, another most likely trashed. It took me hours to process four rolls and today it will take hours to scan and process them.
Just for FOUR rolls.

Same evening, yesterday, I grabbed 5D with 50L on it for family pictures at the deck.
Here is no way, any film or digital M would handle some of those shots at f1.2-1.8 with ultra fast AF of 50L.
I took hundred or so pictures, color and BW in JPEG1. Went on PC and within thirty minutes I have dozen or so final images. Amazing colors and incredible bokeh in bw.

Here is no practical reason in Digital Ms if you just need photos in color. Sony, CanoNikon FF cameras will give you better results. Fuji croppers emulate color film photography really nice.

BW is different story, BW film is still better on film to my eye and it is cheap in price. While color film is not better, but different from digital color.

Don't judge digital Ms buy price effectiveness vs film. Any advanced digital camera is more effective to digital M vs film. The real reason to buy digital M is because they are nicest camera in the world and the only cameras which allows you to use true analog RF. Both factors are weird enough to get digital M under very high price and enjoy.
 
jojoman2 said:
I'm weighing the pros and cons of each.

Cons to digital--So far I've come up with, and this is the main factor that prevents me from going digital, DIGITAL ROT. Also, they are damn expensive.

Knowing that I'll need to upgrade the digital down in three or four years is a huge turnoff. With film I know I'll have it for as long as I'm into film (assuming photographic tragedy leaves me be).

Also, the shutter is louder than film (at least on the M8 I used), like almost SLR loud.

Pros to digital-- Very clean results, color, ease of processing on computer.

FILM-- Pros: shooting film in general is pleasing to me. The body won't need upgrading except when a CLA is needed. Advancing the film is a huge reward in my book, so smooth. Scanning film is pretty effective.

Cons-- more labor intensive than digital. Cost of film. Availability of film in other countries. Exposed rolls in other countries need to be carried around until I return home to develop (how do you guys do that, do you mail or carry your exposed rolls when traveling?)
Click to expand...

Gosh, another film vs digital thread. In 2015 ... Didn't this all go past half to three quarters of a decade ago?

There is no such thing as "digital rot." There's the mental rot in the photographer's mind that he or she feels compelled to buy a new camera because "it must be better ... it will make me a better photographer" which is mostly self-delusion. My Olympus E-1 (made in 2003) still makes the same fantastic photos it made in 2008, which are the same fantastic photos it made in 2003 when it was first sold. I bought it secondhand but practically unused: a sad case of photographer's mental rot. I still use the E-1 because it's such a fabulous camera with excellent lenses.

The M8 and M9 series Leica Ms were Leica's first two development generations of the M digital camera. They had/have lots of issues. Pick up and play with an M/M-P typ 240 ... entirely different shutter (FAR quieter), sensor, responsiveness, etc. Buy either of these and shoot with it for a decade or more, if you can stave off the mental rot that so many photographers can't shake.

Leica will still be around, and they'll still service them to the limits of part availability. Just like they do with their film Ms.

And yes, they're all freekin' expensive. M-A bodies are $4200, MP bodies are $4500, M typ 240 bodies are $6300, and M-P typ 240 bodies are $7000. Add the cost of lenses too. If you're worried about that, go buy something from Sony or Olympus or Nikon or Panasonic or ... take your pick.

G
 
Cal, just for clarification with MM9, it's your Monochrome then or do you also have an M9?

all great points though!

I as well shoot both film and digital, for shooting experience I would go with film, but for convenience, faster output and great low light performance I would go digital.

for my own enjoyment, I like to grab my Hexar RF or M3, 50mm Summicron and couple rolls of HP5+ or Gold 200.
if it's a paid gig or for work, then it will be my digital cameras (A7 and X100T in this case)

you can't directly compare a digital RF to any other digital cameras either, image quality of the newer sensor may be better than the digital M but shooting a mirrorless camera, DSLR is no where close to shooting RF.


to the OP, if you don't mind the laborious workflow of film M, then I would say keep shooting with a film RF but if you want something faster then get a digital M.

just a fun price comparison that I just did, M6 vs M9 assuming the following
-you're planning on developing B&W film yourself
-you don't own a scanner yet
-you're shooting one roll of film per day for a whole year

Used Leica M6: $1000
Cost of film: $1460 assuming HP5+ is $4 each and you're shooting 365 rolls (one every day)
Chemicals: $60 enough HC110, RapidFixer and Photoflo to develop 365 rolls
Digital Scanner: $400 (Epson V700 type of scanner)

Total for this is around $2900, price may be less if you shoot less film but it can also be more if you're shooting and developing C-41, E6 or sending your film to a lab for processing.

For $2900 you can get a used M9, you dont have to buy and carry rolls of film, any developing or scanning.
 
taemo said:
Cal, just for clarification with MM9, it's your Monochrome then or do you also have an M9?
Click to expand...

T,

Sorry for the confusion on my part. MM9 is an abreviation for my Monochrom.

I liked your thoughtful post. You are correct in that shooting a DSLR is a very different experiance than shooting my Monochrom. My D3X is a beast and not nearly as elegant as shooting a M-body.

Also the film process is a very different experiance that I find very rewarding.

One of the reasons I shot only B&W film only was to moderate costs. IMHO one must shoot a lot if one wants to grow a lot, but photography kinda gets crazy expensive real fast if you are passionate about it.

I'm really-really glad I shot a lot of film (150 rolls a month) when I could buy rebranded Tri-X for $2.89 a roll and rebranded Acros for as cheap as $1.89 a roll (short dated). Believe it or not I still have some of this inexpensive film in my freezer. Scale can add to costs as well as savings.

I like what Mark Cuban said, "Go big or don't go."

Cal
 
Godfrey said:
Gosh, another
There is no such thing as "digital rot." There's the mental rot in the photographer's mind that he or she feels compelled to buy a new camera because "it must be better ... it will make me a better photographer" which is mostly self-delusion.
G
Click to expand...

I completely agree with this. The need to have a new camera every time a new model come out is driven by the psychological need to have the newest and the best for most people. Technology has advanced to a point that improvements in most cameras are minimal with a few exceptions.

As to getting a digital M and I did own an M9 for a couple years, I wouldn't waste my money unless you're just dead set on an RF. Output from the M240 still isn't close to what you can get from the upper end Nikon and Canons or even Sony and Fuji cameras. You'll spend less money and have greater flexibility and superb lenses. Ok they're larger but for many of us it's no big deal. It's especially no big deal if you carry several primes vs one zoom. My film M9 kit consisted of one body, 24 Elmar, 35 FLE Summilux, 50 Asph Summilux and 90 Apo Asph Summicron plus three batteries. This was a heavy kit no matter how you look at it. It was at least as heavy as my D800 and 24-70. Guess which one had superior images in every respect.

What I do for vacation, I take a minimal digital camera like the last time in Italy. It was a Canon G10 that I've had since they came out. The prints I make are less than 8x10 and they look great. I seriously doubt anyone could tell what they were shot with. I'm going back to Italy in October and will upgrade to a Nikon D3300. I had a D3100 but gave it to a friend that dropped his camera. I'll put an older mid range zoom on it and that's it. It weighs very little and it's cheap and if it gets trashed or lost it's not a big deal. The images are plenty good for vacations memories.

For most peoples needs a moderate cost digital camera set to jpg output is all they need. Most people have no idea what to do with raw files and don't want to bother. As to film and scanning, there are very few people that can produce a really good image from film. They can make images but not up to what a modest priced DSLR can produce. Most get cheap drugstore scans or do their scans on something like an Epson V750. The scans are soft, low contrast (flat) and too light. I see very few scans that are very good.

Save yourself a lot of money and time and get a mid range DSLR and decent lens and have fun. Make pictures and don't worry about what equipment is around your neck. No one really cares, it's all about the image. I don't know of any digital camera that's current that doesn't produce great images.
 
You can't think of a digital camera as an actual camera -- it's essentially a lot more akin to a computer. Computers are great tools but they are also tools that go obsolete within a matter of months (or just a few years).

One factor you didn't include was the extra cost of using digital -- software, storage and computer. Storage is vital and it's just a matter of when a drive is ruined, not if.
As files get larger and larger with each new camera model, so too do you need faster, larger computers.

These are all costs that are very real and can't be downplayed.

I'd also say to anyone that thinks film requires more time and labour to consider the time and labour needed to tweak digital files and to backup -- that last one has to be repeated multiple times at regular intervals...I'd say when all factors are considered there's little to no real time savings with digital.

These aren't necessarily knocks against digital -- just realities that have to be considered.
 
x-ray said:
...
Save yourself a lot of money and time and get a mid range DSLR and decent lens and have fun. Make pictures and don't worry about what equipment is around your neck. No one really cares, it's all about the image. I don't know of any digital camera that's current that doesn't produce great images.
Click to expand...

Or consider a Fuji or Sony mirrorless...small quiet and portable cameras. If it's the size and portability of rangefinders you want, well these things are kicking Leica's butt lately.
 
I think you've answered the question yourself. As long as you're into film, keep shooting film.

Do you do wet prints? I consider those who don't faux/hybrid film shooters. Think about it, you're using a computer and "post-processing" photos to your liking after all. I'd love to go back to film, but not until I have more time to myself and when I can a space for a proper darkroom setup.
 
Just buy both. I have an M7, M4 and M8.2. Generally I take one film body and one digital and 3 or 4 lenses on an outing. B&W for film.

Plus I don't understand why yesterday's digital camera isn't good enough for today. If it was good enough 5 years ago it's still good enough. New, improved film cameras for the most part were introduced as fast or faster than digital cameras today. With the same mind game - the consumer will always keep buying the latest model (keeping up with the Jones"
 
mlu19 said:
I'd love to go back to film, but not until I have more time to myself and when I can a space for a proper darkroom setup.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with just concentrating on making negatives for wet printing at a later date: one you can shoot a lot to get better; two you can concentrate on one thing and get really good at it; and three you can manage limited resources like time, money and space.

Again, nothing wrong with just making negatives.

BTW it took about two years to save for a printer, a 27 inch Eizo, and thousands of dollars worth of paper and ink after I bought my Monochrom. Similarly I just created digital files.

Understand that I spent almost $5K on a computer right away when I bought my Monochrom.

Cal
 
Colin Corneau said:
Or consider a Fuji or Sony mirrorless...small quiet and portable cameras. If it's the size and portability of rangefinders you want, well these things are kicking Leica's butt lately.
Click to expand...

I agree. I don't have any experience with the Sony but I'm very impressed with the Fuji. I wouldn't hesitate to use a Fuji for my clients shoots. A friend that's retired from commercial photography sold his Canon gear and bought Sony. He's using it to produce a book on wood carving. The quality excellent.

The more I see from the other makers the more I'm impressed. Really when it comes down to it there is no one single dominate company anymore.

As mentioned I'm going to buy a D3300 for my upcoming trip to Italy. I considered a Fuji but decided I didn't want to get into another system. I'm deeply invested in Nikon digital because of my work and don't need another. The D3300 is plenty small and all my ED and prime glass works on it plus they're inexpensive and make impressive files. Also the menues are intuative if you have a D800 or Df.
 
Colin Corneau said:
You can't think of a digital camera as an actual camera -- it's essentially a lot more akin to a computer. Computers are great tools but they are also tools that go obsolete within a matter of months (or just a few years).

One factor you didn't include was the extra cost of using digital -- software, storage and computer. Storage is vital and it's just a matter of when a drive is ruined, not if.
As files get larger and larger with each new camera model, so too do you need faster, larger computers.

These are all costs that are very real and can't be downplayed.

I'd also say to anyone that thinks film requires more time and labour to consider the time and labour needed to tweak digital files and to backup -- that last one has to be repeated multiple times at regular intervals...I'd say when all factors are considered there's little to no real time savings with digital.

These aren't necessarily knocks against digital -- just realities that have to be considered.
Click to expand...



most film shooters now a days are hybrid shooters so in some form their shots will eventually end up becoming a digital file.
although the advantage of film is that you have a physical backup in case your computer or hard drive crashes, i personally rely on cloud solution to backup my digital image, accessible anywhere on the world and redundant.
unless you're like Cal, where his film workflow is strictly analog, wet printing only.

TBH I would rather work on a digital file, easier to adjust with on LR than using a scanner where you have to scan it in the first place, save the image as TIFF and still end up processing/tweaking it in LR afterwards.
One thing I've learned after scanning B&W and Color Neg for a couple of years now is that scanning is an art of it's own.
It's not just a simple load film, press scan and voila, instant image (although the Pakon F135+ is very close to it). You have to go through individual image and tweak it which is probably why some pro/wedding film shooters relies on Film labs to process and scan the film for them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom