Mcary
Well-known
Personally I love the idea of Digital ROT 
after all that's what will allow me to buy a slightly used M240 in 2016 or 2017 for 2/3rds of the original cost as people fearing Digital ROT sell their M240s to help pay for the new Leica M. As someone who's more very happy with the results I get from my M8 I see no reason that the M240 won't meet my needs well into the next decade.
As far as a film M vs a Digital M rather then using Digital ROT or other such BS for choosing a Film M over a Digital M what wrong with someone saying they prefer shooting film over digital? To me that's the best and only reason someone needs to choose film over digital.
after all that's what will allow me to buy a slightly used M240 in 2016 or 2017 for 2/3rds of the original cost as people fearing Digital ROT sell their M240s to help pay for the new Leica M. As someone who's more very happy with the results I get from my M8 I see no reason that the M240 won't meet my needs well into the next decade.As far as a film M vs a Digital M rather then using Digital ROT or other such BS for choosing a Film M over a Digital M what wrong with someone saying they prefer shooting film over digital? To me that's the best and only reason someone needs to choose film over digital.
uhoh7
Veteran
The M9 and a good lens is not going to get any less sharp in 10 years.
Yes there will be newer models, but the M9/MM is as film-like a body as I think we may ever see.
3K will get you a perfect one just back from Leica.
rscheffler
Well-known
For the cost of another year of shooting film, you can upgrade your purchase to a used M240, which has resolved a lot of the developmental problems of the M8/M9, as Godfrey pointed out. Chances are you'll keep the camera for many more years, with the 'per actuation' cost declining considerably.
Just bide your time and buy one or two generation old. Someone else will absorb the majority of the depreciation. As already mentioned, digital cameras now are to the point where it's diminishing returns with successive models. IMO, the M240 is at a pretty good sweet spot if you want a digital rangefinder with some of the refinements found in DSLRs and mirrorless cameras. Prices should drop further once the next model is released, unless it's a dog, or extremely expensive, thus propping up M240 resale value. But as it stands now, the M240 has definitely not held value over a couple years the way the M9 initially did. Which I think is great because it makes the system more accessible, considering its quite inflated cost of entry.
As for the M240 image quality being outclassed by competitive DSLRs, with that I generally disagree unless your prime consideration/requirement is highest available resolution. There's probably also a one stop dynamic range difference with some of the Sony/Nikon products, but really, not a huge difference. BTW, I shoot the M240 side by side with a DSLR and maybe higher than ISO 3200 the DSLR has some edge. The M240 has better color. Each has certain advantages, hence the reason I use both.
As for digital rot, maybe the OP meant data degradation? It's certainly a concern. The point is that whatever system/technology you use, there is a requirement for continual monitoring to ensure optimum longevity. With digital it will mean data migration to newer standards while ensuring data integrity. With analog there are other concerns such as the vulnerability of a single original copy. Mould, water, dirt, heat, light, humidity, acidity of storage materials, air circulation, pests... Whichever way you go, there will be strengths and weaknesses to consider.
MCTuomey
Veteran
It might be worth noting that, unlike support for dSLRs at Canon that terms out after ~8 years, Leica appears to support its digital cameras over a more extended timeframe. Which means that it's feasible to shoot AND repair its cameras over the 10 years *uhoh* mentions.
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
Seems to work pretty well for lots of photographers, Salgado among them.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
True enough - although I do have some RF 50mm lenses I like just as much as my 50L (none - quite - as fast). And I guess ugliness is in the eye of the beholder: this combination, which I've used frequently over the years, is no uglier than any other AF SLR with a big lens, but no prettier either.
This is also true, and something I'm very fortunate to be able to experience. I also find that (for both film and digital) I shoot differently with SLRs than I do with RFs - not better or worse, just differently. I'm glad I'm able to shoot both RFs and SLRs with film and with digital.
...Mike
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Much the same reason I still use my Canon (original) 5D.
There is no need to upgrade digital cameras. I've thought of upgrading my 5D but haven't, so far, found reason enough to justify spending the money. I used my Canon 50D (my long lens camera of choice) for years, and looked as the 7D, 60D, 70D and other upgrades came and went, deciding there was nothing (or not enough) for me in the upgrades. I did, however, buy a 7DmkII recently. There was something in that for me: substantial improvements in AF including the ability to autofocus lenses with a maximum aperture of f8. That is of immediate practical use to me. I don't regard that as an upgrade driven by putative 'digital rot' - I bought something that gave me a whole new capability, not upgrades to existing capabilities.
...Mike
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
Sure, if you don't think things like fixing problems, adopting new innovations or progress is important, I guess.
http://www.drewtensils.com/tools/leica-m8-eight-years-later
Add to this the problems with the M9 sensor, as well.
I'm not Leica-bashing -- I loved my Nikon D2h when it came out but compared to the Canon 5D Mark 3, in both handling and overall file quality it's atrocious...I'm sure glad I don't have to use it anymore.
Digital cameras age quickly for the same reason computers do.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Chalk and cheese.
Old digi Leicas still work: I have a first-year M8 and a 6 year old M9.
Consider the "quality plateau", the level at which your skill as a photographer matters more than your choice of camera.
If you find an M9 significantly limiting, you must be a truly amazing photographer.
Cheers,
R.
Old digi Leicas still work: I have a first-year M8 and a 6 year old M9.
Consider the "quality plateau", the level at which your skill as a photographer matters more than your choice of camera.
If you find an M9 significantly limiting, you must be a truly amazing photographer.
Cheers,
R.
Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
But there is bit rot, and data rot.
But we all have our image files and backups on servers with ECC and ZFS, don't we?
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Interesting, the last paragraph of the post you linked to:
...Mike
Kwesi
Well-known
The OP has very wisely left the room-so here is some advice that will never be read.
The value of a camera lies in the images you make with it and the joy derived during that process. Cameras are inherently expensive and even more so if you have to trade up so don't settle for almost as good as... .
This talk of "digital rot" is nonsense bandied about by neophytes, cheapskates and toy collectors. Dare to buy what feels best and leave the rest to your muse.
uhoh7
Veteran
+1
For what I enjoy, which is a pretty wide variety of color photography, there no advantage whatever to film. None.
OK 1 advantage. I like the M6 body better than the M9, in the hand. It's a bit lighter and smaller.
Some guys have a reasonable workflow with film, but "scanning" OMG for color, what a nightmare. Yes, it can be done. But it's crazy complex, with multiple software needed. I hate computers anyway (though I work and teach them), and the color film workflow does not attract me, that's for sure. I really don't care for BW in my own work, except when I have no other option. If your time is valuable, the price of working with color film is way over a used M240 or M9, shooting plenty over a year.
As to the great Salgado, he certainly won't touch 35mm film, as the quality is too low for him. It's medium format or digital. I quote a nice synopsis from 2010 by "alohakid"
"During one of the earlier interchanges, Salgado let it be known that he had switched to digital, which drew an audible gasp from some of the audience. He later on explained that he had used Leica at the beginning (both the legendary Leica M rangefinder and also the R6.2 SLR). When he was working on the previous project, “Africa”, he wanted to print big, so he switched to the medium format camera. He chose Pentax 645 because the low-contrast Pentax lens matched the characteristics of the Leica lens he used (he was probably using the earlier generation Leica lens and not the latest high-contrast sharp-as-tack ASPH generation).
For the current Genesis project, he needs to travel all over the world going through multiple countries and airports. His assistant would carry tens of pounds (I believe he said up to 50 pounds) of films, and being post 9-11, this got to be difficult as they requested hand checking of the film. He would carry documents from different agencies and a couple of times he had to call “people in high places” to straighten things out. With the 220 film, if it went through the X-Ray scanner more than 2-3 times, the quality degraded to less than 35mm level. So the assistant said they needed to do something about the situation.
One of his friends suggested that he try digital, which at first he resisted. However, he did try a medium format 645 back and was quite impressed by the quality. Since the medium format back setup was a bit large, he eventually settled on the Canon full frame (1Ds-something?). However, he still uses it like in the film days: his assistant makes contact sheets for him, and his camera is modified to give the same 645 ratio he is used to. He also has the images processed to look like Tri-X. For prints, a lab converts the data into a 645 negative and prints using traditional darkroom process!
He is excited by the promise of the new Leica S2, a camera system that is set to challenge medium format and full frame 35mm digital by having a sensor size bigger than 35mm and with 39 megapixel resolution, quality that will likely best any medium format digital with its peerless Leica glass, with better ergonomics to boot. He looks forward to possibly using Leica again.
His reference:
https://rfman.wordpress.com/2009/05/10/an-evening-with-sebastiao-salgado/
And here is Salgado in the flesh, last fall:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alNAl20rNdI
I like clarity in much of my shooting (not that I'm so great LOL), so I'm not likely to shoot 135 film over the M9.
But film is cool, and more power to those who love it.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
I have a M240 and have been shooting M film bodies for many years.
M240
PRO
- Switch ISO on the fly
- low light performance
- Color or BW
- Convenience (no scanning)
- Frame lines frame more accurately than M6/M7/MP etc (Post M4-2 / early M4-P)
- LED illuminated frame lines
CONS
- +$7500 per body
- Battery dependent.
- Will you be able to buy a M240 battery in 5-10 years?
- Obsolescence. Upgrade every 3-4 years.
- Digital files wiped out by sun flare... Must maintain multiple digital copies that need to be migrated for the rest of your life and will probably end up in the trash after you're dead, along with your obsolete computer.
- Same meter as the film cameras. To be frank it's too 'dumb' for digital. If you are off by 1/2 stop in digital the highlights are toast. Film forgives metering errors by not blowing the highlights, especially in a 2-bath developer. Leica really needs to switch to a 'smart' matrix meter, probably reading off the prism block of the rangefinder unit. Basically you end up taking many test shots to check the histogram.
Film M
PRO
- Archival stability. Your BW negs will probably outlast you (see Vivian Maier)
- Battery independent (M7 excluded)
- Frameline preview selector
- Film fails gracefully. Close to impossible to fry highlights with a 2-bath developer.
- Service life of camera may exceed operator.
- Works great with hand held meter. Predictable exposure results with experience.
- Tri-X
CONS
- Fixed asa means multiple bodies
- Color or BW. Pick one
- Scanning. Good scanners are hard to find and time consuming to operate.
- Low light sensitivity not as good as digital.
M240
PRO
- Switch ISO on the fly
- low light performance
- Color or BW
- Convenience (no scanning)
- Frame lines frame more accurately than M6/M7/MP etc (Post M4-2 / early M4-P)
- LED illuminated frame lines
CONS
- +$7500 per body
- Battery dependent.
- Will you be able to buy a M240 battery in 5-10 years?
- Obsolescence. Upgrade every 3-4 years.
- Digital files wiped out by sun flare... Must maintain multiple digital copies that need to be migrated for the rest of your life and will probably end up in the trash after you're dead, along with your obsolete computer.
- Same meter as the film cameras. To be frank it's too 'dumb' for digital. If you are off by 1/2 stop in digital the highlights are toast. Film forgives metering errors by not blowing the highlights, especially in a 2-bath developer. Leica really needs to switch to a 'smart' matrix meter, probably reading off the prism block of the rangefinder unit. Basically you end up taking many test shots to check the histogram.
Film M
PRO
- Archival stability. Your BW negs will probably outlast you (see Vivian Maier)
- Battery independent (M7 excluded)
- Frameline preview selector
- Film fails gracefully. Close to impossible to fry highlights with a 2-bath developer.
- Service life of camera may exceed operator.
- Works great with hand held meter. Predictable exposure results with experience.
- Tri-X
CONS
- Fixed asa means multiple bodies
- Color or BW. Pick one
- Scanning. Good scanners are hard to find and time consuming to operate.
- Low light sensitivity not as good as digital.
froyd
Veteran
Several of our members, in this very thread, have used the expression "digital rot". Why make assumptions about who they are that sound like personal attacks?
Godfrey
somewhat colored
No such things. Those are just poor information management.
However, my archives are prints and publications.
G
Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
You may of course call data rot poor information management, but that's just another word, isn't it?
How many photographers are also skilled data storage specialists? Or can employ one?
Don't let them fool you: buying a couple of USB drives is not enough...
However, my archives are prints and publications.
Now, that's clever!
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
I think you ought to be factoring in the cost of buying and feeding a printer, or two, or three over the life of a digital camera.
And allowing for them to suddenly die when the computer fails and is upgraded and then you find (as I did with a laser printer) that the makers don't do drivers for the last version of Windows and so on. My film scanner went the same way, too.
Then there's the cost of software up dates when Windows changes, that caught me badly.
OTOH, a developing tank and enlarger cost little to run apart from bulbs now and then and, perhaps, a new thermometer if you drop yours.
And there's spare batteries for the digital camera and keeping them charged and ready. Plus the dreadful cost if a large media card fails with hundreds of pictures on it. That's 10 times worse than opening the camera back with a film in it!
Regards, David
I think you ought to be factoring in the cost of buying and feeding a printer, or two, or three over the life of a digital camera.
And allowing for them to suddenly die when the computer fails and is upgraded and then you find (as I did with a laser printer) that the makers don't do drivers for the last version of Windows and so on. My film scanner went the same way, too.
Then there's the cost of software up dates when Windows changes, that caught me badly.
OTOH, a developing tank and enlarger cost little to run apart from bulbs now and then and, perhaps, a new thermometer if you drop yours.
And there's spare batteries for the digital camera and keeping them charged and ready. Plus the dreadful cost if a large media card fails with hundreds of pictures on it. That's 10 times worse than opening the camera back with a film in it!
Regards, David
Kwesi
Well-known
Irrefutable proof that there is absolutely no difference between film and digital can be found here.
Enjoy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ3fjQa5Hls
Enjoy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ3fjQa5Hls
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I don't expect to live forever. I don't care if my photographs do either. Others might ... that's their business.
G