Godfrey
somewhat colored
All you need is one M240 body and two or three lenses. The rest is superfluous. Once you have that, you don't need to pay a penny for anything else—there's nothing you have to pay for beyond it, other than maybe a spare battery and a couple of memory cards.
It's not like any digital camera, once past its purchase price, requires ongoing maintenance.
G
f16sunshine
Moderator
Without any disrespect .... I can't spend $7-10k Godfrey.
I can spend $2500 and I have.
It's not a matter of who's right or wrong.
We have different financial situations and priorities.
I have and love my film M and modest color skopar 50mm.
An m240 is irresponsible for a person like me to consider or plot to purchase.
Especially since I don't need it to do the work that I do.
I can spend $2500 and I have.
It's not a matter of who's right or wrong.
We have different financial situations and priorities.
I have and love my film M and modest color skopar 50mm.
An m240 is irresponsible for a person like me to consider or plot to purchase.
Especially since I don't need it to do the work that I do.
wwkw
-
Are you trying to sell people cameras or teach people heart? By this thread you suck at the latter.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I fully respect that an M240 is very expensive and out of range for many to afford. It wasn't exactly easy for me either. It was important enough to me, however, that I let go of other things to do it. This is certainly not the situation that's possible for everyone, and I get that. I'm sure the Fuji solution you've done works well and it certainly costs less.
What I don't understand is the angst, or 'gut wrenching' business. "I can buy two Fujis and an X100, plus lenses for that price!" Sure, but so what? "I don't want to buy something I have to work overtime to support!" Eh? What does that mean? Whatever you buy, once you buy it, you just use it. There are no further costs.
Unless you're not buying stuff but taking out a loan to have it ... I'd never buy a camera on payments unless it was part of a business plan of expected equipment costs. Buying luxury goods on time is a horrible way to destroy your life.
So ... If the film M and the Fuji do the job, and are what you can afford, life is good. If they're what you want for some other reason, that's even better. But if you rationalize the Fujis in exchange for an M based on money, but really want the M, you're just setting yourself up for gut wrenching and more time treading the hamster wheel of desire.
The Ricoh GXR I had was pretty darn good, and I wasn't very excited by the M8. I could have stopped there. But it didn't quite make the grade where I wanted it. The M9 was good, but the fact that I bought the A7 told me that it wasn't doing it for me right either. The A7 didn't either, and when I spent yet another unplanned load on the M-P, to replace the damaged M9, I said to myself, "this is the last shot. I can just barely afford it, and it it doesn't tickle me right, I'll get rid of all of it and stick with the Nikons." It's turned out right, it's produced the work I was hoping for, in the way I demanded; so the gamble went the right way.
What should other people do? I don't know, other than not put this stuff into heart and deep angst over money and desire. Buy what works, what you can afford, and be happy. Don't slam other products based on their price or brand or ... all that stuff. Just do objectively what gets the job done for you and enjoy the work, the photography, and the conversation.
It all works for me.
I'm just as happy with a fine photo out of a Polaroid OneStep that I rescue for a nickel as I am with the glorious tones of a Hassy SWC image enlarged to 40x40 grainlessly, as I am with my old Oly E-1 making a nice photo of falling leaves in morning fog. As long as the photos work and the equipment does what I want, that's all that matters to me. Be well.
G
f16sunshine
Moderator
I fully respect that an M240 is very expensive and out of range for many to afford. It wasn't exactly easy for me either. It was important enough to me, however, that I let go of other things to do it. This is certainly not the situation that's possible for everyone, and I get that. I'm sure the Fuji solution you've done works well and it certainly costs less.
What I don't understand is the angst, or 'gut wrenching' business. "I can buy two Fujis and an X100, plus lenses for that price!" Sure, but so what? "I don't want to buy something I have to work overtime to support!" Eh? What does that mean? Whatever you buy, once you buy it, you just use it. There are no further costs.
Unless you're not buying stuff but taking out a loan to have it ... I'd never buy a camera on payments unless it was part of a business plan of expected equipment costs. Buying luxury goods on time is a horrible way to destroy your life.
So ... If the film M and the Fuji do the job, and are what you can afford, life is good. If they're what you want for some other reason, that's even better. But if you rationalize the Fujis in exchange for an M based on money, but really want the M, you're just setting yourself up for gut wrenching and more time treading the hamster wheel of desire.
The Ricoh GXR I had was pretty darn good, and I wasn't very excited by the M8. I could have stopped there. But it didn't quite make the grade where I wanted it. The M9 was good, but the fact that I bought the A7 told me that it wasn't doing it for me right either. The A7 didn't either, and when I spent yet another unplanned load on the M-P, to replace the damaged M9, I said to myself, "this is the last shot. I can just barely afford it, and it it doesn't tickle me right, I'll get rid of all of it and stick with the Nikons." It's turned out right, it's produced the work I was hoping for, in the way I demanded; so the gamble went the right way.
What should other people do? I don't know, other than not put this stuff into heart and deep angst over money and desire. Buy what works, what you can afford, and be happy. Don't slam other products based on their price or brand or ... all that stuff. Just do objectively what gets the job done for you and enjoy the work, the photography, and the conversation.
It all works for me.
Be well.
G
Oh man... you really took some libertly with this.
KM-25
Well-known
Digital really has not changed what gear I prefer to use all that much but the main purchasing point for me to consider a digital component is that is *has* to work seamlessly with the film cameras in the system otherwise I am not interested.
So for light and unobtrusive, I added a M240 onto my Leica system. For jack of all trades and master of all too, a Nikon D750 & D810. And just this week, for a digital option to my black and white fine art, I purchased a new Hasselblad CFV50c back for my expansive V system.
Film is most important to me but digital makes quick work of big budget shoots so when everyone plays nice together in the sandbox, well that makes me not care about the latest, the lightest or the mirror less.
So for light and unobtrusive, I added a M240 onto my Leica system. For jack of all trades and master of all too, a Nikon D750 & D810. And just this week, for a digital option to my black and white fine art, I purchased a new Hasselblad CFV50c back for my expansive V system.
Film is most important to me but digital makes quick work of big budget shoots so when everyone plays nice together in the sandbox, well that makes me not care about the latest, the lightest or the mirror less.
uhoh7
Veteran
This is getting interesting LOL
I know I'm in trouble when I more than sort of agree with Godfrey. The thread title is definately a shade purple
The money issue is "the last war". It's much less true today. You want full frame with LTM and M glass it can be had for as low as 1100 (A7.mod) and fully native at 2200 (m9) or at most 3800 (M240) (bodies) If you don't need the red badge on your lenses, you can get three great ones for 1500.
However, that said, the Fujis are much smaller and lighter. That could make the difference in a good choice. I drag the M9 everywhere. To the market. But I would have called that ridiculous 3 years ago, when the nex-5n was my main camera. The M9, like G says of the 240, can make you cry. So I drag it.
I see little real disagreement in this thread. Everyone theoretically prefers FF, but obviously there are multiple additional factors, and individual priority orders will always differ.
I know I'm in trouble when I more than sort of agree with Godfrey. The thread title is definately a shade purple
The money issue is "the last war". It's much less true today. You want full frame with LTM and M glass it can be had for as low as 1100 (A7.mod) and fully native at 2200 (m9) or at most 3800 (M240) (bodies) If you don't need the red badge on your lenses, you can get three great ones for 1500.
However, that said, the Fujis are much smaller and lighter. That could make the difference in a good choice. I drag the M9 everywhere. To the market. But I would have called that ridiculous 3 years ago, when the nex-5n was my main camera. The M9, like G says of the 240, can make you cry. So I drag it.
I see little real disagreement in this thread. Everyone theoretically prefers FF, but obviously there are multiple additional factors, and individual priority orders will always differ.
teddy
Jose Morales
Well, that it why I shoot film, my Leica's and stuck with it. High dymmic range, simplicity, well crafted machines. That is all that I need! Great topic.
Lss
Well-known
The Fuji cameras are generally slightly smaller, the difference is insignificant. The weight difference is significant. Whether that matters enough to become a deciding factor is debatable. Only some very specific needs rather than argument on every day use seem relevant from my point of view.
I think it is a question of price and feature set really. The many mirrorless cameras have taken away the size advantage that rangefinder cameras perhaps had in the past. For some people, size has been the only truly differentiating quality or feature of a Leica M camera. And that's fine.
Spanik
Well-known
All this trend towards lighter and smaller makes that there are quite a few cameras that have become too light and too small. Ergonomics are the limit, not technology. And this is overlooked by a lot of the latest cameras.
Rick Waldroup
Well-known
I purchased a Panasonic GF-1 along with the 20mm 1.7 lens when they first came out. I shot with it for a couple of months and went home one day and put every bit of my Nikon DSLR gear up for sale on eBay. I have never looked back. I shoot mostly street stuff and the m4/3 system fit my needs very well. It was liberating to reduce the amount of size and weight I was carrying around with me. I held onto a couple of film rangefinder cameras for a bit more before I eventually sold them as well and went completely digital. I am still shooting Panasonic cameras today.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I recently got a modded A7 and it is absurdly tiny, roughly the same size as the X-T1. I suspect that, going forward, full frame cameras will be smaller. Including the next M-compatible Leica.
Uncle Bill
Well-known
I have yet to make the jump to digital, at the moment if I had the spare cash, it would be a two way race between the Fuji XT-1 and the Olympus OMD EM1. For my style of shooting and the print size I usually go to, the flagship bodies Nikon and Canon are putting out there are overkill and as much as I would love a Leica 240 MP, I just don't have the budget for that.
teddy
Jose Morales
.
It all works for me.
Be well.
G
I'm back on this topic. Well I have an Oly e520. The 14-42mm Zoom does almost everything for me. 90% of my other gear is Leicas, Hasselblad, and Rolleiflex. My Oly is not the best in digital - but it does what I need. Film cameras are an "anchor" in this complicated world of digital technologies and standards that every manufacture wants to make. Film is film - 35mm or 120mm. That's it. Simplicity. No more anxiety. But, because I try to keep up with the new news, sometimes the doubt comes back, then I try my Oly... Good enough. I go and shoot my M3 and M2 - life is quality and good. Problems solved.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
This is getting interesting LOL
I know I'm in trouble when I more than sort of agree with Godfrey. The thread title is definately a shade purple
The money issue is "the last war". It's much less true today. You want full frame with LTM and M glass it can be had for as low as 1100 (A7.mod) and fully native at 2200 (m9) or at most 3800 (M240) (bodies) If you don't need the red badge on your lenses, you can get three great ones for 1500.
...
WHERE could I get working M9 for 2200?
PLEAsE, tell me!!!!!!!
Godfrey
somewhat colored
A search on Ebay for sold auctions shows a few M9 bodies sold in the $2200-2400 range recently. All the ones sold in this price category are listed as either having high actuation counts, a good bit of cosmetic issues, some sensor problems, or likely sensor corrosion. I'd rate any of those cameras Bargain condition: working but with compromises. (It's true that if you buy one of these with actual sensor corrosion issues, you'll get a bargain because Leica will replace the sensor and then check the rest of the camera. However, they don't replace shutters with high actuation counts or necessarily fix all other problems without additional charge.)
The current going price for an M9 in VG to EXC condition, both functionally and cosmetically, currently seems to be between $3200 and $3900.
A similar search for M typ 240 bodies shows a couple in the $4200 range, but the vast majority selling in the $4600-5200 category.
G
pvdhaar
Peter
That's what sucks about Sony.. I'm in a perpetual state of FF envy. What's worse, is that every time that I've decided to trade in the nex-6, it pops out some kind of stunning image that completely messes with my just made up mind. It's been going like that for two years now, and its driving me raving mad..
rbelyell
Well-known
someone needs to help me with this concept as applied to this situation. and in english please.
first, as i understand them, the 'laws' of physics are not really 'laws', just a present point of understanding. have not some changed from einsteins time? even from the '60s (note string theory)? i remember a time when the 'laws' of physics meant the smallest computer we could make filled a small room, or when the smallest cell phone we could make looked like the one from MASH that had to be carried around in its own shoulder bag!
second, maybe we shouldnt get bogged down on my first point, so, more practically, are not rangefinder lenses full frame? are they not high quality? are they not geometrically smaller than slr lenses? do not mirrorless cameras accomodate rangefinder lenses? are the answers to all these questions compatable with the 'laws' of physics as we understand them? if 'yes' answers all of these questions, how do the laws of physics preclude producing small lenses for use on ff mirrorless cameras? the only answer that makes sense to me is that adding an af mechanism fully accounts for the extra size. i dont believe that, but even if true, how do the laws of physics preclude improvement?
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
So, here is NONE for 2200 and this is what I knew for sure. Not even for starting bid. And I'm quite sure those which were sold for 2200 were with the issues.
They are even as low as $1950 if you look at sold auctions... and without issues. The camera is outdated. There are current auctions at less than $2200 right now. It's not hard to find.