Fuji X-Pro or Leica M8

Fuji X-Pro or Leica M8

  • Total voters
    470
M8 now? You're kidding right?

No offense to anyone. M8 / M9 will continue to make many more beautiful pictures for you if you already own them. However, the time to buy these cameras is long gone with all other options available today.

A Film M? Yes, absolutely. Never too late for that. Entirely a different proposition.
 
Sunti said:
M8 now? You're kidding right?

No offense to anyone. M8 / M9 will continue to make many more beautiful pictures for you if you already own them. However, the time to buy these cameras is long gone with all other options available today.

A Film M? Yes, absolutely. Never too late for that. Entirely a different proposition.
Click to expand...

You're the one who is kidding, right? The M9 might be behind the times with other digital cameras, but it's still ahead of the film Ms in performance. We can start with usable resolution (often overstated for film cameras) and low-light capability (yes, there are ISO 1600 films - and yes, they are worse than the M9). These days, 35mm film cameras - even if they matched 24x36 digital in other ways, would still give you scratches, dust, expense, and bulk of recording media. Oh, yes, and the ability to shoot slides. They're cheaper to buy, but the price of film has escalated in a way that makes film a very difficult economic argument.

Today, most outputs, even "film," are via digital means (Noritsu and Fuji minilabs digitize all negatives - they don't optically print). And you can both RC and fiber print b/w from digital files (thank you, Ilford). So what's the value added by using 35mm film as the capture medium? Dynamic range in b/w might be an answer, but against that, you have plenty of opportunities to botch the development, scratch the negatives, or suffer intergenerational loss. 120 film is much more defensible due to the amount of data it captures.

This "film Ms can't be obsolete" is a red herring; it's essentially an argument that improvements at the high end of digital somehow bring 35mm film cameras back from the dead. That's not to say that people don't enjoy shooting 35mm film for other reasons (I do), but in many ways, you're arguing manual typewriter vs. computer.

Dante
 
Dante_Stella said:
You're the one who is kidding, right? The M9 might be behind the times with other digital cameras, but it's still ahead of the film Ms in performance. We can start with usable resolution (often overstated for film cameras) and low-light capability (yes, there are ISO 1600 films - and yes, they are worse than the M9). These days, 35mm film cameras - even if they matched 24x36 digital in other ways, would still give you scratches, dust, expense, and bulk of recording media. Oh, yes, and the ability to shoot slides. They're cheaper to buy, but the price of film has escalated in a way that makes film a very difficult economic argument.

Today, most outputs, even "film," are via digital means (Noritsu and Fuji minilabs digitize all negatives - they don't optically print). And you can both RC and fiber print b/w from digital files (thank you, Ilford). So what's the value added by using 35mm film as the capture medium? Dynamic range in b/w might be an answer, but against that, you have plenty of opportunities to botch the development, scratch the negatives, or suffer intergenerational loss. 120 film is much more defensible due to the amount of data it captures.

This "film Ms can't be obsolete" is a red herring; it's essentially an argument that improvements at the high end of digital somehow bring 35mm film cameras back from the dead. That's not to say that people don't enjoy shooting 35mm film for other reasons (I do), but in many ways, you're arguing manual typewriter vs. computer.

Dante
Click to expand...

Why bother responding so harshly to a post from well over a month ago? Besides, this argument has been beaten to death.
 
anjoca76 said:
Why bother responding so harshly to a post from well over a month ago? Besides, this argument has been beaten to death.
Click to expand...

Reality is harsh, dude, but nothing in the way DS communicated that reality was abrasive.

The argument that film "endures" while digital "rots" doesn't make sense.

One roll of 135-36 RVP-50 (Velvia) in France costs over 30,00 euros (incl purchase price, development, scan, and mailing costs). The list price of the M-E in France is 4800,00 euros, equal to no more no less than 160 rolls of RVP-50 (body not included).

And my favorite high-speed black and white film Neopan 1600 isn't even made anymore.
 
Dunn said:
With the X-Pro coming out soon and with a price around that of a second-hand M8, I'm curious as to what you would rather put your money into.

If you would opt for another similar system like the NEX 7, please specify.
Click to expand...

The 8.2 is generally held in much higher regard than the M8.
Personally I would choose the 8.2 and the rangefinder experience over
the Fuji in a heart beat.

Stephen
 
Ive been looking at this for quite some time, and just this past week I decided to purchase a leica m8. I had the opportunity to shoot with both and experience them, but what really made it for me was the leica glass and the viewfinder.
 
Just purchased a Leica M8 off the RFF classified, which the seller was nice enough to included a rather nice half case. So I'll be using the M8 with out IR cut off filters as a B&W camera. With the half case and auto ISO its like shooting a film camera, with a very very long roll of film :)
For color and low light shooting I'll just pull out my X100.
 
M 8.2 is my vote. I have one along with my M9P. Love the M8.2 for many reasons. The images are sharp and clean. I like the feel of manual focus, where and how I want the image to look. I have gone from DSLR back to Leica. Having a Leica digital along with film and staying in frame of mind makes more sense to me than trying this and that. The Leica image is the most important part and the fun of photography.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom