Hard decision time...

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Every time I read a thread like this I wonder where people get the free computers and free printers and free ink cartridges and free glossy paper from.

Bitter experience tells me that printers last about 3 to 4 years and use ink just doing nothing more than sitting there and being switched on and off. They even use gloss and coloured ink to print my letters in black ink...

Worse still, I know what digital cameras cost and what they cost to repair and what the lenses cost to repair and how long it is possible to get them repaired and I wonder.

In the late 70's to early 80's I had three cameras, a Leica CL which I still have and use a lot, a Pentax ME super, needing the light seals done now, and an Olympus XA that I traded in for an XA2 because the XA was a little too fragile and cost more than buying the XA2 to repair. The repairs to the Leica and the XA were covered by insurance the Pentax light seals won't cost the earth. As I see it 35 to 40 years of photography for just the capita cost years ago and film etc as we went.

There's one other point in this cost comparison, most people talking about 5000 digital photographs are talking about 5000 taken but talking about film I am talking about prints. Few people compare the cost of 5000 prints with the cost of film.

As for the sentimental value; I can't comment but not using it for years and so on suggests you have the answer already. Is there anyone else in your family who would appreciate the Leica?

Regards, David

 

[bonatto]

I shoot between 70-150 rolls of BW film per year. This is, at the very most, some 800 usd or so of film and chemicals. I don't get color, but it's nothing my phone or small compact can't handle. Judging by the sheer amount of gear available in the second hand market, a new ff digicam will depreciate roughly what I spend on film for one year, and I'm at least left with the negatives. Like others have said, get what you want and will use. Otherwise it can become an endless exercise in buying and selling gear.

 

[Michael Markey]

For years I used an M3/2 for sports photography (horses).

I were not the best tool for the job .

Film just didn`t have the latitude for fast action in the low light of a UK winter and manual focus was a pain apart from jump shots where I could pre focus.


What I needed was a pro body Canon or Nikon like everybody else...less hassle ,more efficient but not as much fun and ,of course ,heavy.

The upshot was I stopped shooting the action stuff and focused on pre and post /people shots.

I know from personal experience that its a difficult decision but if you really want to continue shooting fast sports stuff you need the right camera for the job.

Most posters on this forum share a predilection for a particular type pf camera or range of cameras.

Its one I share myself but you`ll not see many sports action shots posted .

I`m not suggesting that it can`t be done just that its not the best approach in my opinion.

 

[thegman]

i wouldn't sell it. money comes and goes, but heirlooms are irreplaceable. an old camera might not look that significant now, but wait several generations....

My thoughts too, if I'm given a family heirloom (or indeed a gift from a close friend), I'm going to keep it. I can see selling something if you need to pay the rent or something, but not just to buy something new.

In 10 years time, your Sony A7 will have been sold on years ago, and you'll be without your Grandmother's gift.

 

[robert blu]

I still use my father's Rolleiflex for two reason: First is the feeling to do myself something he did in the past and the second is that I like the prints I get from that negatives. So sentimental and logic goes in my case hand in hand. Beside the Rollei I shoot digital with a Leica x1 when I need the convenience, when I need a quick photo for the web, when I have in the Rollei a slow film and need higher iso.

I would keep that camera, maybe as David says in the family anyone else could appreciate the Leica. If you sell it, once sold it is sold.

robert

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Interesting points being made, FWIW, I tend to take/make the keepers on/with film cameras, even at air shows. For temporary pictures for the web or ebay I use digital and then forget, unless I'm using the digital as a notebook: meaning recording things.

This week I picked up the usual run-of-the-mill Olympus mju-II in a charity shop and put a 24 exp roll through it inside a couple of days to test it and had a few keepers from it that I'm very pleased with. I think, because I tend to take my time with film cameras, and so get more keepers. With digital you can fire away forever but it's not a very satisfying way, imo.

Regards, David

 

[jsrockit]

Only you can make this decision. Some people are attached to things, some are not. Some people love film and some people like digital. Don't allow other people's biases make the decision for you.

 

[Godfrey]

... I think, because I tend to take my time with film cameras, and so get more keepers. With digital you can fire away forever but it's not a very satisfying way, imo. ...

Replace that "you" with "I". Not everyone "fires away forever" with a digital camera.

Forget the cost. It's only relevant on a different plane of perspectives.

The key is to take the same care in making an exposure with either recording medium. And also in processing and printing the exposures. Only then can you can start comparing whether one works better for you than the other. 🙂

Forgive the digression.

G

 

[Mcary]

Hi,

With digital you can fire away forever but it's not a very satisfying way, imo.

Regards, David

Sure you can fire away forever with digital but why would you want too? I mean if you don't see a photograph(s) or the Potential for a Photograph(s) why even bother?

Sometimes it seems that some people think that all people who shoot digital do is walk around all day with their finger pressed on the shutter release with little or no thought at all to what their photographing.

 

[AlwaysOnAuto]

All very good points, from everyone. Thank you all for your input.
I’ve thought about all of them at one time or another during my foray into film.
While in Monterey I was standing next to a pro who was firing away with his D3 as the cars came into Carmel for lunch. I was taking one picture to his 3 or 4. I wondered if I should be shooting more of each car as it passed. Then I got to thinking…he’s making his living shooting, I’m not. If I were, I would also be shooting more, I suppose.
Again I’d like to thank all that have offered their thoughts on this subject.

 

[Pioneer]

All very good points, from everyone. Thank you all for your input.
I’ve thought about all of them at one time or another during my foray into film.
While in Monterey I was standing next to a pro who was firing away with his D3 as the cars came into Carmel for lunch. I was taking one picture to his 3 or 4. I wondered if I should be shooting more of each car as it passed. Then I got to thinking…he’s making his living shooting, I’m not. If I were, I would also be shooting more, I suppose.
Again I’d like to thank all that have offered their thoughts on this subject.

In one respect I think that your name choice for this forum gives some insight into your preferences.

Over the years I moved from a Canon EOS 1V, where I could run through a roll of 36 exposure film in seconds if I was so inclined, on to a Canon EOS 1Ds, which I still love.

Then I picked up a Leica M6TTL and an old Summicron 50/2 LTM. Though it didn't happen overnight, as time progressed I found myself picking the M6, instead of the Canon, even for sports events. What I learned was actually a bit surprising.

I found I preferred the sports shots I was getting with the M6. Instead of blazing away I was being more careful and placing myself in positions where I knew that I would be able to capture good photographs. I also started focusing on the people more, not just the action.

Obviously you can do this without an M, people have been doing it for years, but the enforced change of pace makes you focus harder on what you are doing. That, for me, has been very exciting.

 

[Michael Markey]

..... I was being more careful and placing myself in positions where I knew that I would be able to capture good photographs. I also started focusing on the people more, not just the action.

Yes , that`s been my experience too and why I didn`t go down the DSLR route .

You take a different kind of photograph but only you can decide what kind you want to take .

 

[Scrambler]

1) Just because someone is making money from their photos doesn't necessarily mean their approach is better.
2) A Sony A7 is NOT the camera to shoot fast action with - the burst mode locks focus so you might as well just take the first, in focus, shot with your rangefinder.
3) Why do you want/need full frame? You could halve your cost and get a Sony A6000 which is no worse (or better) than the A7 for what you want to shoot. Or you could get any of the midrange Nikon or Canon (or Sony, or Pentax) APS-C SLRs which would do better job than the A7. Any of these will cost you the difference between what you get for the M3 and have to pay for an A7. There is no inherent benefit to FF vs APS-C sensor - at least none that isn't overcome by 3 years of R&D. And present APS-C cameras already have better real-world performance than colour film.

In the nearish future (if not now) you will find sportscar photography being done with 4K video cameras shooting continuously which frame capture at the "peak" moment done in "post." Then it will be 16K or whatever...

On the selling question - really, you are asking the wrong crowd, as said at the beginning of this thread.

I wouldn't sell my grandmother's camera, not if it was a plastic disposable, or an original black paint MP. I've tracked down an example of the first camera I personally owned and bought it "back." That's my personal take. My grandfather's watch was stolen from my parent's house. I am bitterly disappointed that it won't get handed down. An M3 doesn't seem that exotic, but what will it represent in another 100 years? That you have used it as well adds to the historical "patina" for later generations.

 

[Johann Espiritu]

I wouldn't sell it. The money you would get from it would hardly cover the price of a new A7 + lenses, so you may be better off finding another source to fund the new purchase. In a few years, the A7 will be "old tech", and even further down, long forgotten.

Maybe your kids one day will inherit the M3, and it will be part of a family tradition.

I think it's easy to see the idea of selling a camera to buy another one, but if you really need to, maybe there are other stuff lying around your house that you can sell instead.

 

[Godfrey]

2) A Sony A7 is NOT the camera to shoot fast action with - the burst mode locks focus so you might as well just take the first, in focus, shot with your rangefinder.

Um... I have an A7 and use it exclusively with Leica R and Nikkor SLR lenses. It's a delightful camera to shoot fast action with, just like my Nikon F and Leica R8 are. Even without a motor drive, and certainly without AF. 🙂

G

 

[AlwaysOnAuto]

In one respect I think that your name choice for this forum gives some insight into your preferences.

My name choice is more a description of what has worked best for me as far as getting good results. Not having had any formal training I've found I can't 'out think' the algorithms in my camera.
I'd like to be able to afford enough film to practice but find my fixed income has nixed that idea now.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

My income fixed by 41% of taxes and large family living in house with big mortgage.
So, I ordered 90 meters of Polypan F for $50, chemicals for it is $40. Film scanner is findable for $100 if needed.
90 meters of film is a lot of film rolls. Close to one hundred.
It is one hundred of $ per year, almost.

 

[goamules]

Here is what I would do. Keep at least some of the heirloom for your grandmother's legacy. Sell the camera body, keep the lens. That way, you won't be worrying about shooting film, or a camera going to waste. The lens is what makes a picture anyway, the lens is what saw the world with her. And you can use the lens from time to time to remember her by, on a digital body.

You get the best of both worlds; generate some income for that A7 you want, and keep a part of your heritage that you CAN use, with the A7.

 

[mfogiel]

Short advice: do whatever suits your needs.
Long advice: if you shoot colour, by all means get a digital camera, but if you shoot B&W, learn how to develop and scan yourself. You will always miss the look of film.

 

[AlwaysOnAuto]

Here is what I would do. Keep at least some of the heirloom for your grandmother's legacy. Sell the camera body, keep the lens. That way, you won't be worrying about shooting film, or a camera going to waste. The lens is what makes a picture anyway, the lens is what saw the world with her. And you can use the lens from time to time to remember her by, on a digital body.

You get the best of both worlds; generate some income for that A7 you want, and keep a part of your heritage that you CAN use, with the A7.

This is exactly along the lines of what I'm thinking.
The lenses impart their 'quality' to the photos. The recording media is really not that important, at least to me anyways. The look of photos taken with an 'old' lens is the key to me.