CosmicCharlie
Established
I would not do it, but that is only my opinon
Is it ok to sell my M6 to get R-1Ds?
- Thread starter pizzahut88
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 37
- Views 3K
saxshooter
Well-known
Why not? You can probably get a used M6 again for around the same price you sold it for.
But you take the remote chance of the RD-1 EVENTUALLY failing and becoming unrepairable (Epson doesn't support, and Steve Camera seems to only be able to fix shutters and not electronic issues) and then you will have a dead RD-1 with no value.
I am not fatalist, but I had my first RD-1 (brand new) fail after 13,000 shutter actuations. It was replaced under warranty (2 days before warranty ran out).
But you take the remote chance of the RD-1 EVENTUALLY failing and becoming unrepairable (Epson doesn't support, and Steve Camera seems to only be able to fix shutters and not electronic issues) and then you will have a dead RD-1 with no value.
I am not fatalist, but I had my first RD-1 (brand new) fail after 13,000 shutter actuations. It was replaced under warranty (2 days before warranty ran out).
Last edited:
SteveM(PA)
Poser
I wouldn't want the r-d1 to be my only M body, if that's what it would come down to. It is fun though to click-crank click-crank with reckless abandon as if you were blowing through a ton of film. You can't do that with any other digi. After shooting awhile with the r-d1, I'll still pick up the M3 and say "Oh my God" out loud.
saxshooter
Well-known
Any jazz fans out there? This reminds me of a story the great alto saxophonist Phil Woods often tells about how he was having trouble with his saxophone setup, not happy with the horn, the reed, the mouthpiece... etc. (Sax players have GAS too!) This was during a period when the legend Charlie "Bird" Parker was still alive. I think this story applies to photography too.
[FONT=verdana,arial][FONT=Garamond,Georgia,VERDANA,ARIAL]"Woods begins by recounting a gig on which he was so tired of playing the same tunes night after night that nothing seemed right — not his reed, not his mouthpiece, not even the strap that held the alto around his neck. When he heard that “Bird's across the street jamming at Arthur's Cafe,” he hurried across 7th Avenue to see the great man in person. “Bird was playing a [borrowed] baritone sax,” Woods says, “and I could tell he was having trouble, so I said, 'Mr. Parker, perhaps you'd like to use my alto.'” When Bird said that sounded like a good idea, Woods dashed to the club where he was playing, grabbed his horn and hurried back to Arthur's. “I give Bird the horn,” Woods says, “and he plays a few bars of Long Ago and Far Away. Suddenly, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with my horn. The mouthpiece, the reed — even the strap sounds good! Then Bird hands me the horn and says, 'Now you play.' So I play a couple of choruses, and Bird looks at me and says, 'That sounds really good, son.' Be still, my heart. I levitated across 7th avenue! My feet did not touch the ground. I stopped looking for the magic reed, the magic mouthpiece, the magic horn — instead, I started to practice! "
[/FONT][/FONT]
Last edited:
Atom
Molecular.Atom
Very Nice.
einolu
Well-known
yes, nice quote.
i think the film vs digital debate arises so often because it is so different, especially if you are used to film. it's not exactly like other camera purchases, so it's not just an issue of gear lust, at least when you are first making the transition.
i havent found my answer yet. there is a kind of magic to film and i like the way it prevents me from thinking while i photograph and stays politley out of the way (except when i reach the end of a roll). the tactile nature of it and the fact that you have a hard copy of every shot, not just some file on a memory card, is also attractive to me. digital is... sort of cheaper, and definitely more flexible with the ability to change iso and what not, but it's so different.
anyway, i feel dumb when i start counting the costs of photography because it is a total luxury to begin with....
just my little rant.
i think the film vs digital debate arises so often because it is so different, especially if you are used to film. it's not exactly like other camera purchases, so it's not just an issue of gear lust, at least when you are first making the transition.
i havent found my answer yet. there is a kind of magic to film and i like the way it prevents me from thinking while i photograph and stays politley out of the way (except when i reach the end of a roll). the tactile nature of it and the fact that you have a hard copy of every shot, not just some file on a memory card, is also attractive to me. digital is... sort of cheaper, and definitely more flexible with the ability to change iso and what not, but it's so different.
anyway, i feel dumb when i start counting the costs of photography because it is a total luxury to begin with....
just my little rant.
JNewell
Leica M Recidivist
The M6 will be what it is for as long as film is available (which is likely to be a long time). You will be able to buy and use M6s for a very long time into the future.
The R-D1 is more scarce, since relatively few have been produced. However, it is my guess that it will become technologically obsolete and/or non-functional (either electronically or mechanically or both) long, long before an M6. It's the nature of the product. I just bought a Nikon D100 ANIB with extra batteries for $350. Check what it was going for a couple of years ago. What's wrong with it? Nothing...other than being a couple of generations stale...and that in a period of just a couple of years...that is the digital downside right now.
Which brings me to the point that, to me at least, it would matter how much I paid for an R-D1. KEH has one LN for something around $2k. I just bought a LN refurb from Epson for $1400. That was a (barely) acceptable price - to me (YMMV). $2k? I wouldn't do it, myself.
The R-D1 is more scarce, since relatively few have been produced. However, it is my guess that it will become technologically obsolete and/or non-functional (either electronically or mechanically or both) long, long before an M6. It's the nature of the product. I just bought a Nikon D100 ANIB with extra batteries for $350. Check what it was going for a couple of years ago. What's wrong with it? Nothing...other than being a couple of generations stale...and that in a period of just a couple of years...that is the digital downside right now.
Which brings me to the point that, to me at least, it would matter how much I paid for an R-D1. KEH has one LN for something around $2k. I just bought a LN refurb from Epson for $1400. That was a (barely) acceptable price - to me (YMMV). $2k? I wouldn't do it, myself.
Steve Litt
Well-known
I love to use my Rd-1 but I wouldn't trade it for my M2.Its not the film digital debate I am happy with both but using the M2 is liberating just set the exposure for what the light is and then forget about technicalities.However the RD-1 gives me colour (I have never used colour in my M2)which is sometimes a nice surprise and processing digital files is a lot easier and quicker than scanning negs.That said after 12 months of the RD-1 I am starting to use the M2 more again.So I would heartily reccomend the RD-1 but with a film rangefinder for backup.Its nice too when a 28mm is 28mm and a 50mm is 50mm instead of the crop factor although having said that my 50mm cron makes a great 75mm on the RD-1.You see I need both!!
Regards
Steve
Regards
Steve
R
rich815
Guest
"For ease of use, nothing beats digital."
If that's what's important then go for it.
"But then I love the grain, color and feel of film."
If that's more important, then suck it up and accept it.
After all are you producing so many amazing images that you need more time? 🙂
Personally I find the scan time a necessary time for getting the quality I desire and get with film.
You could sell your Minolta scanner and get a Nikon LS-4000 or 5000 with the film roll adapter. I have the LS-4000 and since getting the adapter it cuts my scanning of a roll from 45 minutes plus to about 10 minutes of preview and tweaking and then I walk away and do other stuff while it scans.
If that's what's important then go for it.
"But then I love the grain, color and feel of film."
If that's more important, then suck it up and accept it.
After all are you producing so many amazing images that you need more time? 🙂
Personally I find the scan time a necessary time for getting the quality I desire and get with film.
You could sell your Minolta scanner and get a Nikon LS-4000 or 5000 with the film roll adapter. I have the LS-4000 and since getting the adapter it cuts my scanning of a roll from 45 minutes plus to about 10 minutes of preview and tweaking and then I walk away and do other stuff while it scans.
Didier
"Deed"
I used a M6 many years, then I bought a R-D1 last year.
Also like the texture of my scanned b&w negs (my scanner is even slower than yours). Fnd the M6 more compact and more ergonomic to use (except AE). That's why I couldn't let the M6 go so far, but - have hardly used it since. Only when the Epson was in service...
So my advice is - go forward and don't look back. Sell it.
Didier
Also like the texture of my scanned b&w negs (my scanner is even slower than yours). Fnd the M6 more compact and more ergonomic to use (except AE). That's why I couldn't let the M6 go so far, but - have hardly used it since. Only when the Epson was in service...
So my advice is - go forward and don't look back. Sell it.
Didier
foto_fool
Well-known
I wonder what magus would say? - he had so much love for digital, but so much for the M6 also 😀 .
I have both and I'm keeping both. I probably shoot more with the R-D1 but then it is my only digital body and I only use it for color and I don't shoot RAW because that is just so much of a waste of time IMHO.
I shoot 97% B/W in 5 different film bodies, one of them the M6. Lately I have been spending the most quality time with the IIIf, but that will change and the M6 may be the one getting the most use then. Different tools for different jobs and moods.
Good luck with your choice.
- John
I have both and I'm keeping both. I probably shoot more with the R-D1 but then it is my only digital body and I only use it for color and I don't shoot RAW because that is just so much of a waste of time IMHO.
I shoot 97% B/W in 5 different film bodies, one of them the M6. Lately I have been spending the most quality time with the IIIf, but that will change and the M6 may be the one getting the most use then. Different tools for different jobs and moods.
Good luck with your choice.
- John
R
rich815
Guest
I should add to my post that if you have enough RAM you can work on a the first couple of scans in PS while the scanner continues to scan, then work on the next few, and so on. It's nice to do that while the scanner scans the whole 36-exp roll instead of having to stop every six frames and take one strip out, re-load the strip holder, re-feed, etc.
Artorius
Caribbean Traveler
I'm in the same boat, kind of...
I'm in the same boat, kind of...
But I am torn between a new .58 MP and an M8. I already have an M3 and M4-P, and a Leica D-Lux 3(which is a love/hate relationship). I love film and I would like the instantaneous results from digital.
I have a butt-load of Nikon DSLR stuff(4 bodies and at least a dozen lenses), but now that I have retired, I'd like to keep a digital, and I don't want to carry around 50+ lbs. of gear when I could do the same thing(RF and Digital RF) at a huge weight difference in favor of the film and digital RF cameras.
I guess I'll sell the DSLR stuff, and figure out what "I" really need/want.
I'm in the same boat, kind of...
But I am torn between a new .58 MP and an M8. I already have an M3 and M4-P, and a Leica D-Lux 3(which is a love/hate relationship). I love film and I would like the instantaneous results from digital.
I have a butt-load of Nikon DSLR stuff(4 bodies and at least a dozen lenses), but now that I have retired, I'd like to keep a digital, and I don't want to carry around 50+ lbs. of gear when I could do the same thing(RF and Digital RF) at a huge weight difference in favor of the film and digital RF cameras.
I guess I'll sell the DSLR stuff, and figure out what "I" really need/want.
Olsen
Well-known
Artorius said:
I agree with you.
All I am going to buy more of from now on is up dated digital cameras. As they come along. No more analogue stuff. I have analogue cameras up to my hips. And I probably have too many lenses to really enjoy this. Some of them will have to go too.
JNewell
Leica M Recidivist
Olsen said:
Have not gotten that far, but I will say that the creeping (up on me) advent of digital has sure affected what LENSES I will plonk down cash for now. No more 300mm lenses, for sure...
Vincenzo Maielli
Well-known
No, don't do it.
Ciao.
Vincenzo
Ciao.
Vincenzo
nrb
Nuno Borges
Don't do it!
Or do you think a small sensor rangefinder can give you better images than a full frame film rangefinder?
Or do you think a small sensor rangefinder can give you better images than a full frame film rangefinder?
Artorius
Caribbean Traveler
To the original question
To the original question
No, I would never sell any of my M's for a digital. That said, I am selling all my Nikon DSLR gear for M gear, of which I have a lot of, for my newly ordered M8. I figured I'd give it a try. I have the D-Lux 3(love/hate it) and am giving the M8 a try. Like any other camera, if it don't work, I will sell it. Nothing gained, nothing lost.
To the original question
No, I would never sell any of my M's for a digital. That said, I am selling all my Nikon DSLR gear for M gear, of which I have a lot of, for my newly ordered M8. I figured I'd give it a try. I have the D-Lux 3(love/hate it) and am giving the M8 a try. Like any other camera, if it don't work, I will sell it. Nothing gained, nothing lost.
Similar threads
