I'll Take an M, Please!

[ktmrider]

I developed my first roll of film as a freshman in high school back in 1966 and then paid my way through college with photography. I have kept it up as a casual hobby while owning lots of different cameras.

I purchased a Canon G9 last January and my daughter also uses a compact Canon digital which she bought last May for a trip to Europe. Well, I just mailed my G9 back to Canon for the second time for repair and my daughter's camera has been in once. This new age of electronics SUCKS!

For film, I have been using a Nikon F and Leica M4 for the past several years. Each camera has had exactly one CLA. I just ordered a 35f1.2 for the Leica so I am giving the G9 to the wife. My brief foray into digital is OVER!

 

[MCTuomey]

i don't believe electronics suck, or digi for that matter. i shoot a great deal with my canon dSlrs, mostly youth sports and an occasional paid gig. the right tool for the job, that's all.

but when i shoot for my own enjoyment, i return to simple film gear. i like the handling, the "workflow," the results.

congrats on your resolve to return to film. the nikon and leica will appreciate the exercise 🙂

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Your electronics suck because they're cheap point-n-shoots. Yeah, I know, the G9 costs like $500, but high end digital cameras are reliable, as are high end electronic film cameras like the EOS-1V and the Nikon F5.

 

[KM-25]

I wouldn't say electronics suck, I use a G10, D700 and a D3. But if given the choice, I will use one of my mechanical film rigs over the digi cams any day.

 

[ktmrider]

Well, if you talk to people like Sherry Krautner. she also has a low opinion of most digital cameras. Now I know she makes her living repairing manual cameras but my experience with computers is about the same. If Fords had the same amount of problems as our computers (viruses, hard drives crashing), we would still be using horses for transportation.

Now I have friends who shoot for National Geo and they went digital 2 years ago and if I was doing this for a living (especially as a journalist) I am sure I would be buying hi end digital SLR's. Really what you are paying for on a high end digital is the robustness of the housing. However, since I am doing this for my pleasure I will stay with mechanical film cameras. I wonder what the top of the line Canon dSLR which probably sells for more then $5000 will be worth in say two years. And one of them who was both Magazine Photographer of the Year and Newspaper Photographer of the Year keeps a pair of M2's around for after the neutron bomb goes off and all electronics are kaput.

When digital watches first appeared back in the early 70's, they went for upward of $500 if memory serves. Now, they come in crackerjack boxes. My Rolex has gone from $320 when purchased in 1980 to over $5000 today. And Leica prices speak for themselves. And my observations on some digital cameras also applies to other products. My daughter has had to send her cellular phone back twice in 8 months for replacement.

And I will stack my Nikon F or Leica M up against anything made today, either film or digital. And I have used most modern film cameras and choose to shoot with older bodies, primarily for nostalgia.

And even though the Canons were their point and shoot models, I really don't recall problems with cameras like the Canonet QL, Olympus XA or Yashica rangefinders which would have been in the same class and price range as modern point and shoots.

 

[Prosaic]

And one of them who was both Magazine Photographer of the Year and Newspaper Photographer of the Year keeps a pair of M2's around for after the neutron bomb goes off and all electronics are kaput.

Yes, thats reasonable.

 

[SimonSawSunlight]

but a neutron bomb would ruin all the film, oh noes!

 

[payasam]

You said it. Those who photograph for money use digital, those who take pictures for their own pleasure can afford the luxury of film. It is true that digital equipment does not have the longevity of mechanical cameras, but at the higher price levels you can get good instruments. Standards differ for the two kinds. For paying work I use mainly my digital SLR: but I also make some money with scanned negatives out of my M2. If my plans to set up a portrait business fructify, I propose to use film more than digital.

 

[peter_n]

There are some mid-range bodies with good build quality, Nikon's D200 for example. I've had a number of small inexpensive digicams and never had a problem with them, both my kids have had inexpensive Canons for years with no issues. If you take reasonable care of modern cameras they should last. My issues have been with the current crop of Leica ASPH lenses - for the money you pay the manufacturing quality is a disgrace.

 

[ktmrider]

Well, I know my G9 was never subject to abuse. And the memory card only shows 200 photos (although some have been deleted). The first trip back to Canon was due to a faulty flash unit and now the lens will not extend. And my daughter also has a Nikon D40 which has never needed repair so not every digital is subject to failure.

Again, digital cameras are loaded with amazing features and if I were a working news photographer that is what I would be using with auto everything because they bring back usable images 99% of the time. However it does torque me off that one of Canon's more expensive compact cameras has had two trips back for repair within a year of purchase. I would swear that the camera was not abused (save that for my Nikon F). I went with a high end digital point and shoot mainly for the weight and space saving for travel and other out door activities.

I purchased the G9 after seeing one of my friends at National Geo use it as a back up for her big Canon dSLR's. Her husband is the other National Geo photographer I was referring to and he is a big equipment geek so I figured the G9 would be a pretty good camera. Her photos of wild mustangs is in this months issue of National Geo and it was a lot easier to carry the G9 on horseback compared to one or two of the large digital SLR's.

I also do a lot of travel by motorcycle and am planning a trip to Tierra del Fuego next fall. I was contemplating just taking the G9 as photography is not the main reason for the trip. I figured that the size and features of the G9 would be great for this trip. Can you imagine how ticked off I would really be if I got down south and the lens failed to extend. I think my Nikon with 24/105 will be in the tankbag and I will FedEx the film home as required.

Thanks for reading my rants, Rich