Digital Leica M vs Film M bodies

[Godfrey]

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

Um, I bought my last printer (an Epson R2400) in October 2005. It produced on the order of 12,000 prints, including all the work that was shown at exhibitions, contests, proof prints of my books, holiday and greeting cards, etc etc. It wasn't dead yet, but I'd been enthused by a presentation of the new Epson P600 two months ago. So I gave the R2400 to a friend of mine who couldn't afford a new printer of like quality and bought myself a P600.

The R2400 survived perfectly well the ownership of about two dozen digital and film cameras, five computers (Apple Mac G4, G5, mini, MBP, and another mini), and seven major OS releases (OS X 10.4, 10.5, 10.6, 10.7, 10.8, 10.9, and 10.10 including dot and dot-dot release updates). Oh yes, she's running it on Windows 7, I believe. It cost me $700 to purchase and, well, calculate out the cost paper and ink. Pretty darn cheap to run in the end analysis...

Unlike my old enlargers and darkroom gear, which I gave to a school that later tossed it into a dumpster (I did cry), the old printer continues to have enough value that my friend has made a bit of money selling prints made with it in the past two months.

G

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

But you are doing a lot of prints; I think the printers I owned and cursed would have run better if I'd done a lot of prints and kept them active but low use allows them to clog up. The last one would need 7 or 8 cleaning cycles to get usable prints and the clog up again.

So my idea of printer replacement is based on that and my conclusion that a new one every 3 or 4 years would save a lot of ink being wasted cleaning something that wasn't really cleanable.

As for the poor old laser printer, the makers never updated the driver and so Windows 8.1 wiped that out and my flat bed scanner and my film scanner. And moving to Windows 8.1 also meant a lot of software becoming unusable.

Costing digital, imo, is not so easy because it's tied up with the cost of keeping a computer going and that's a bit of a lottery for most people. And I forgot to mention the cost of the back-ups needed.

Many years ago when I sold off my first serious dSLR and worked out the cost per file in the computer I realised that the cost per print (5"x7") from the film cameras was a fraction cheaper. I dare say that using the scatter gun technique might have lowered prices of the the digital but I was brought up on slide film...

Regards, David

 

[Godfrey]

Hi,
But you are doing a lot of prints; ...

Use common sense: printers (like nearly any other machinery) need to be exercised regularly to stay in good condition. The only times I had a clog with the R2400 over the decade I owned it was when I let it sit for six months. A good policy for the longevity of the printer is to make one or two prints every week ... that's only 100 prints per year, you should be doing that anyway if you are a photographer ... at which point the device will last forever, the inks won't dry out and damage it, etc.

It's probably best not to conflate the costs of every piece of equipment you own into what "costing digital" means. For instance, even if I did no photography at all, I'd have a computer and a printer nowadays. What percentage of my computer purchase should be applied to my photography? Well, which computer? I have iPad, iPhone, desktop system, three laptops, etc...

IMO, if you want to do photography and you're not making a living at it, it's a luxury that you do because you want to and you have the money. Whether film or digital, it will cost you money. Whether computer or darkroom, it will cost you money. Accept the cost and do the photography you want to do, or don't accept it and don't do photography. Simple and decisive...

A top notch 13x19" print for exhibition or sale using fully archival paper and ink costs me about $8 in media. A similar size print made in a home darkroom cost me more than that and wasn't as good; the same similar size print made at a reliable pro lab cost me a lot more and was just about on par. I can't conflate the costs of ALL of the equipment and skills required to make that pro lab print; it doesn't make sense to.

I spend a good deal of my disposable income and free time on photography because I like to do it, want to do it. If I have to provide an accounting calculus as rationale for doing it, I'd just stop.

G

 

[Kwesi]

Use common sense: printers (like nearly any other machinery) need to be exercised regularly to stay in good condition. The only times I had a clog with the R2400 over the decade I owned it was when I let it sit for six months. A good policy for the longevity of the printer is to make one or two prints every week ... that's only 100 prints per year, you should be doing that anyway if you are a photographer ... at which point the device will last forever, the inks won't dry out and damage it, etc.

It's probably best not to conflate the costs of every piece of equipment you own into what "costing digital" means. For instance, even if I did no photography at all, I'd have a computer and a printer nowadays. What percentage of my computer purchase should be applied to my photography? Well, which computer? I have iPad, iPhone, desktop system, three laptops, etc...

IMO, if you want to do photography and you're not making a living at it, it's a luxury that you do because you want to and you have the money. Whether film or digital, it will cost you money. Whether computer or darkroom, it will cost you money. Accept the cost and do the photography you want to do, or don't accept it and don't do photography. Simple and decisive...

A top notch 13x19" print for exhibition or sale using fully archival paper and ink costs me about $8 in media. A similar size print made in a home darkroom cost me more than that and wasn't as good; the same similar size print made at a reliable pro lab cost me a lot more and was just about on par. I can't conflate the costs of ALL of the equipment and skills required to make that pro lab print; it doesn't make sense to.

I spend a good deal of my disposable income and free time on photography because I like to do it, want to do it. If I have to provide an accounting calculus as rationale for doing it, I'd just stop.

G

Thank you Godfrey. My highlights for emphasis.
It really is that simple.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

OK but this thread started like this; "Digital Leica M vs Film M bodies; I'm weighing the pros and cons of each... " and that is what I was commenting on.

As for computer costs, I run two and without digital photography I'd have just the old Toshiba laptop which is still going strong 12 years later on. But it's HD is too small for my photo's which have been amassing since 1997 or 98. OTOH, it works well for spreadsheets, WP and so on. It's also faster being less complex imo but doesn't go on to the internet and that and digit bloat the software badly.

So, that was my take on going from film to digital and the extra complications digital causes. It's not just my 70's camera that's still going strong but almost everything else connected with film from then. OTOH, digital gets complicated at times, mostly keeping up with what is forced on me. (And then there's the Hughes Collection of different batteries and all their weird chargers... )

Digital photography pushed me into posher printers, dearer ink and ink wasted cleaning it. The older laptop needs just the B&W laser and that's dirt cheap to run.

Repairs etc to digital equipment costs a fortune btw. A problem with a lens from my E-3 cost hundreds to put right, my pre-war and 50's and 60's ones are so reasonable I can pay with the cash in my pocket...

BTW, I agree about it being a hobby and done for enjoyment: so best not to count the costs too closely. But I wouldn't want anyone to go into it without knowing what's ahead.

BTW2, I agree about using the printer all the time and think I do but I have holidays and so on. Not using the printer for a few weeks at a time in summer is probably the cause of the clogging. But holidays, travel and so on are what cause most of my prints. If I stayed at home, I'd have little to print...

Regards, David

 

[bwl]

With the exception of an M8, a digital M Type 240 will last you a lifetime; there's nothing to become obsolete. It's specifications are already at a professional standard and if you need more than that you would be shooting medium format. The M is also as quiet if not more so than an M7. I shoot with both depending on my mood. Very different experience, but both are sublime. If I was considering this decision I would by a new or used mint 240 and a used M7. You won't be disappointed.

This is how quiet:

http://petapixel.com/2013/04/26/lei...-silent-shutters-in-united-states-courtrooms/

 

[Godfrey]

Hi,

OK but this thread started like this; "Digital Leica M vs Film M bodies; I'm weighing the pros and cons of each... " and that is what I was commenting on.

As for computer costs, I run two and without digital photography I'd have just the old Toshiba laptop which is still going strong 12 years later on. But it's HD is too small for my photo's which have been amassing since 1997 or 98. OTOH, it works well for spreadsheets, WP and so on. It's also faster being less complex imo but doesn't go on to the internet and that and digit bloat the software badly.

So, that was my take on going from film to digital and the extra complications digital causes. It's not just my 70's camera that's still going strong but almost everything else connected with film from then. OTOH, digital gets complicated at times, mostly keeping up with what is forced on me. (And then there's the Hughes Collection of different batteries and all their weird chargers... )

Digital photography pushed me into posher printers, dearer ink and ink wasted cleaning it. The older laptop needs just the B&W laser and that's dirt cheap to run.

Repairs etc to digital equipment costs a fortune btw. A problem with a lens from my E-3 cost hundreds to put right, my pre-war and 50's and 60's ones are so reasonable I can pay with the cash in my pocket...

BTW, I agree about it being a hobby and done for enjoyment: so best not to count the costs too closely. But I wouldn't want anyone to go into it without knowing what's ahead.

BTW2, I agree about using the printer all the time and think I do but I have holidays and so on. Not using the printer for a few weeks at a time in summer is probably the cause of the clogging. But holidays, travel and so on are what cause most of my prints. If I stayed at home, I'd have little to print...

Regards, David

David,

Sorry to hear of your troubles. But ...

My point is simple: dragging *all* of the costs of doing photography into the narrowly focused statement of "going digital" is an inaccurate way to characterize the situation. And has nothing whatever to do with the differences between a digital M and a film M. This is more relevant:

I owned my M9 from January 2012 to January 2015. It made 18,000 excellent exposures which have processed to a healthy number (greater than 500) of beautiful color and B&W photos while I owned it. It cost me exactly nothing once past the point of purchasing the camera and a couple of spare batteries and a couple of storage cards, a combined total of less than $6500.

To do the same with my M4-2 would have cost me over $6000 in film and processing costs, plus the cost of the camera, and I'd never have reached that number anyway through lack of time to scan, sort, and process film images.

That's the real difference between a film M and a digital M: the amount of work you can get done with the latter far outstrips what you can get done with the former regardless of how much it costs, and ends up being less expensive to own and use as time goes on. Any film camera costs you more and more since a film camera is based upon consumable media.
G

 

[Archiver]

You may also consider your feelings about gear itself; when I bought my M9, it was accompanied by the cost of the camera vs how much it would cost to buy a film M and shoot film for a period of ten years. $930 a year seemed to be a reasonable price, given that I could produce tens of thousands of images in that time.

This got blown out of the water when I liked the M9 so much that I bought a mint secondhand M7 as well. Then there was another 'mouth' to feed.

From a viewpoint of practicality, flexibility and results, the M9 beats the M7. But from a haptic/feel/sound point of view, the M7 beats the M9. And for me, the feeling of a film M is incredibly attractive. If you buy a digital M there is no guarantee that you won't succumb to the lure of a film M anyway.

I've spent thousands of dollars buying harddrives to store my ever increasing digital image collection over the years, and I'm due for another two or three 3-4TB harddrives for backup purposes. This is another cost of digital consumption that I had not factored into my digital M purchase.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Well, I think we'll have to agree to differ on this. I've never done 500 photo's a month and have no thoughts of ever doing it. So, like everything else in life our mileages vary...

I'd be happy to have a M9 if I could buy at American prices and needed to take that many photo's a month but on my version of the hobby it would be expensive and unjustified.

EDIT after brain kicked in; "I owned my M9 from January 2012 to January 2015. It made 18,000 excellent exposures... ". That's almost a 36 exposure cassette every other day. Wow! We manage about 2,000 a year between us with the digital gear (including phones) and about 30 or so films...

Regards, David.

 

[richard_l]

I'm perfectly satisfied with my D-Lux 4 and X2 for digital. Considering the price of (and issues with) M digitals, they constitute a risk I am not willing to take. I have not seen any evidence that they produce images which are esthetically superior to film. Since I search carefully for interesting photographic subjects and take care with framing and exposure, my output is far below that which justifies the cost of a digital M, especially considering their initial cost and less than stellar dependability. For now I'll stick with my rock-solid M2 and M6.

 

[Calzone]

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.

Colin,

A thoughful post.

I'm with you on your thoughts. I don't do scanning because I'm a lazy slacker, and to me scanning film is like taking the same picture twice, although it really is just a copy at best.

To annoy my friends who do Figital I call my Monochrom my "Hand-Scanner" because my workflow is 100% digital unless I send a file to Digitil Sliver Imaging for a wet print to be made on fiber.

Cal

 

[noisycheese]

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?)

To answer your concerns -
Digital "rot:"
As Ken Rockwell says, "[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Digital Rot means that a camera's digital guts rot-out its value in just a few years because you can't remove the digital guts. Sadly, Digital Rot is a disease shared by all digital cameras."
[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]This is an issue for all digital photographers. Time will tell, but IMHO some cameras will be affected more, some will be affected less. I would expect medium format digital and some models of digital Leica M cameras to be affected less than some other cameras.[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]

Upgrading in 3-4 years:
When Leica developed the M240 and M-P and released these two cameras, they set the bar awfully high for both themselves and other camera makers. Whatever camera eventually replaces the M240 and M-P will probably offer higher ISO performance at image quality that is equal to or perhaps slightly better than the M240/M-P. Beyond that, I cannot see much if any room for improvement in these two cameras. That means that the M240 and M-P will continue to be viable and serviceable cameras for some time after they have been replaced.

Shutter noise:
I have not had a chance to shot with an M8, but I have used both the M240 and the M-P. To my ear, the shutter release sound of these cameras is significantly more quiet than any SLR I have ever used. The M240 and M-P have a shutter sound that is very similar to the film MP and M4-P Leicas that I have used. The shutter sound is different - but it is not any louder than my M4-P, as far as my ear can discern.

Exposed film while traveling internationally:
When I used my MP and M4-P on a trip to Mongolia in 2013, I kept my exposed film with me throughout the trip. I would leave it in my hotel room during the day with my extra unexposed film and take 5-6 rolls of unexposed film with me for the day. It was no inconvenience to do this and take all my film home on the return trip. Regarding shipping exposed film home, I would rather carry my film with me to ensure that it would get home safely and not be lost in transit, which would be a nightmare.

Hope the above helps.
[/FONT]

 

[Archiver]

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?)

Thought I'd add a few more thoughts to the mix.

This so-called 'digital rot' only applies if you plan to sell the camera in the future and expect a decent return. And you don't 'need' to upgrade in 3-4 years time unless you are definitely unhappy with the output of your camera.

Case in point: I bought my M9 five years ago, and while the M240 and M-P are tempting, I feel no real need to upgrade on what I consider to be a fantastic camera. My Canon 5D Mark II, which cost the most I had spent on any single piece of gear at that time before the M9, hardly gets used any more, whereas the M9 is in regular rotation alongside others like the Panasonic GH3, GM1, the Olympus E-M5, the Ricoh GR, etc.

If you're comparing a film M with a digital M, you're not thinking about video or the ultimate in high ISO performance, because a film M simply doesn't do video, nor does film really handle high ISO too well. The best you'll get with a film M is ISO3200 film pushed to 6400, which will look like a black and white snowstorm. A digital M will give you high ISO colour images that beat high ISO film any day.

As for how long the camera will last: my M9 has been going for five years and has taken tens of thousands of images, probably around 50,000 or more. I expect it to last for another five years at least. 'Digital rot' is irrelevant to me because I have no intention of selling my M9.

A film camera will be subject to the purchase and development of film, which has all the relevant costs. Yes, you do have to factor in the costs of digital storage, but that would be the case anyway if you use a computer on a regular basis and store data.

As for the shutter sound: this is the only thing I wish was better with the M9, but it's still less than my 5D Mark II. The M240 has a much more discreet shutter sound, much more quiet than a regular DSLR.