if I could afford an M9....

kshapero

kshapero

South Florida Man
Local time
5:17 PM
Joined
Mar 27, 2006
Messages
10,044
I would get one, wouldn't I?:) Would it be so much better than my M6 other than the convenience of not developing film? Would it? I have owned DSLR's and R-D1's only to return to the Film M. I guess the fit is right for me, nothing objective here. So...if I could afford one or should I even try to afford one? Or maybe just sit tight for the Fuji X whatever (I use 35mm length 90% of the time anyway). Is it worth it?
 
I can afford an M9, and I do not give a damn. I like B&W film. And these St. Tropez ladies prefer it too:

5040838833_2d51ae183e_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
kshapero said:
I would get one, wouldn't I?:) Would it be so much better than my M6 other than the convenience of not developing film? Would it? I have owned DSLR's and R-D1's only to return to the Film M. I guess the fit is right for me, nothing objective here. So...if I could afford one or should I even try to afford one? Or maybe just sit tight for the Fuji X whatever (I use 35mm length 90% of the time anyway). Is it worth it?
Click to expand...

I can't really afford one, but fortunately it's a business expense... Of all the cameras I own, I have none more useful. But I can't imagine giving up film for B+W.

Cheers,

R.
 
mfogiel said:
I can afford an M9, and I do not give a damn. I like B&W film. And these St. Tropez ladies prefer it too...
Click to expand...

Nice pic, and a good reminder that B&W film still trumps digital! I am surprised to see Corona made it to Europe, though! :eek:
 
I suppose for the people who like the look of digital its top quality stuff. Though is 7k worth it considering you've already got your film M paid off and ready to go?

A nice cheap digital body like the fuji would probably be more suitable if it's only going to see a little usage
 
If I could afford an M9 ... I'd buy something I actually needed with the $10000.00 (Aust)
 
I think we need to add a condition to make the proposition more sensible given the popularity of film:

"if I could afford an M9 and I prefer digital capture for certain work ... "

my response: ... then I would buy one.

Nobody would buy an M9 if they prefer film in the first place.
 
Last edited:
I just bought one and am with Roger on this. It's a very useful camera that doesn't replace black and white film. The ZI and Mamiya 7 can stay

Mike
 
Can I afford an M9? yes I could probable afford the $300 a month payments for it but since on average film /processing cost me less then $100 a month that seems like a pretty high cost for chimmping :)
Sometimes I even ask myself whither or not I shoot enough to warrant using both 35mm and Medium format so bringing digital back into the mix and further lessening what little use each system get even further just doesn't seem to make much sense.
 
If I could afford one, which maybe I could if I didn't spend anything else on photography, I would not buy one.

I had the pleasure of borrowing one for the day from Leica in Zingst. Sure, it is a beautiful camera, and I was really impressed with the image quality and sharpness of the images when I reviewed the files on my computer afterwards. But I pretty much hated using it. I found it very slow - that is the writing of the jpeg file (I shoot digital in raw and jpeg), and then the screen on which you can view the photos is so crappy, in my opinion, that you can't have any idea if the picture is a keeper or not. I much preferred my Olympus EP2 to use.

Of course people say, don't use preview etc, but then you lose half the point of a fdigital camera.

I shoot film more and more these days, and see a digital camera as a back up, not a main camera. I like having different cameras, different lenses and using different films, always experimenting, learning and enjoying. If I travel, for example, I usually take at least one medium format camera, one or two 35mm rangefinders and a little Pen2. If I had the M9 I would feel I would have to use it all the time, sell the other stuff to pay for it, and then I'd be very bored.

If the M9 cost less than £500 however, I would happily buy one just to test my film lenses (although even then you have to put up with all that incompatibility and coding nonsense).

When it came out, I said I certainly could not afford, or rather justify the expense, of an M9. Since then I am sure I have spent more money on (mainly) second hand cameras, lenses, film and developing. But I'm much happier that way.

If, on the other hand, film suddenly stopped being made, I guess something like the M9 would be the camera I would have to have to be my all round replacement
 
If I could afford an M9...I would BUY one, ditch the wife's D40 and all remaining Nikon accessories in a minute.

But, wait.... if I could afford an M9, it would mean a quantum leap for me and rather than living hour by hour struggling and scraping to get by, I would not be the same person I am now...Hmmm... So, that means I would have a LOT more disposable income than I do now (which, btw = 0), so I would probably have a lot of things that I do not have anymore... and probably appreciate it less while my neighbors are struggling to keep their homes. <sigh> :(

However, an M9 and an M3 would definitely be cool.;)

Sure doesn't hurt to dream....
 
I want one. How can you not? But for me it would take years and years, cuz I'm not gonna sell off a bunch of lenses just to get a digital body, any digital body.
But as I've said before, I think the Fuji X100, if well-implemented, may well change the waiting game.
 
Nick De Marco said:
If I could afford one, which maybe I could if I didn't spend anything else on photography, I would not buy one.

I had the pleasure of borrowing one for the day from Leica in Zingst. Sure, it is a beautiful camera, and I was really impressed with the image quality and sharpness of the images when I reviewed the files on my computer afterwards. But I pretty much hated using it. I found it very slow - that is the writing of the jpeg file (I shoot digital in raw and jpeg), and then the screen on which you can view the photos is so crappy, in my opinion, that you can't have any idea if the picture is a keeper or not. I much preferred my Olympus EP2 to use.

Of course people say, don't use preview etc, but then you lose half the point of a fdigital camera.

I shoot film more and more these days, and see a digital camera as a back up, not a main camera. I like having different cameras, different lenses and using different films, always experimenting, learning and enjoying. If I travel, for example, I usually take at least one medium format camera, one or two 35mm rangefinders and a little Pen2. If I had the M9 I would feel I would have to use it all the time, sell the other stuff to pay for it, and then I'd be very bored.

If the M9 cost less than £500 however, I would happily buy one just to test my film lenses (although even then you have to put up with all that incompatibility and coding nonsense).

When it came out, I said I certainly could not afford, or rather justify the expense, of an M9. Since then I am sure I have spent more money on (mainly) second hand cameras, lenses, film and developing. But I'm much happier that way.

If, on the other hand, film suddenly stopped being made, I guess something like the M9 would be the camera I would have to have to be my all round replacement
Click to expand...


It took me a few days to make it do what I wanted, but eventually I just turned off the auto pre(post?)view and set the shutter to soft and discrete and I was fine with it. It focuses well, although the viewfinder is not an Ikon's and makes nice pictures. I'm learning that you have to be really careful with sharpening sometimes and it needs a grip (so does the Ikon) for my hand.

I still love film, but actually the M9 can save me some time too where I really am poor.

Mike

Edited to add - last time we went away (family) I took a 1Ds3 and a bag of lenses. I used the 50 on the ferry and then mostly the 24-105 for the rest of the trip. I've some lovely snaps, but it was a big kit to grag around and the M9 would have done better. I was actually quite disappointed with the 24-105 after the trip as it was obviously much less lovely than the primes. We're going back next year and I will take the M9 and a couple of film rf's - one being medium format as adding an Ikon to the M9 still weighs loads less than the 1Ds3 body even before you think about lenses.
 
Last edited:
Yes its worth it. though I can not say it is so much better than a film camera, only that it is a fantastic camera with probably the most filmic files one can get from anything digital right about now. My M6 is going on trips as the backup body.

Not so sure about the make B&W from digital movement, personally I still find B&W film to look more B&W than digital stuff, but that is probably just a matter of taste.

Bo

www.bophoto.typepad.com
 
Instead of an M9, I could buy heaps of film, bring my current setup with me (or, if I wanted a Leica, I could buy an M6) and buy plane ticket to somewhere, have a great experience, come back with great memories and photos, and still have money left over =].

But then, if I could afford one, I'd be able to take that holiday anyway!
 
I have to say that I'm in the camp who says no.

I just cannot justify (which is of course not necessarily the same as 'afford') spending large amount of money for a camera -- digital or film -- anymore. If anything I'd rather spend it on my darkroom consumables (paper and chemicals).

It is exactly the same reason I'm holding on to my Ultron 35/1.7 even though I know that I want the 35mm pre-ASPH Summilux. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom