Leica M9 for the middle class

A

anorphirith

Established
Local time
11:22 PM
Joined
Sep 6, 2009
Messages
172
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]BUY:
-Leica M6 ~$1300 mint
-buy some super sharp low aperture voigtlander lenses like the 50mm f/1.1 or the 35mm f/1.2 for less than $1000 each
-Buy a stock pile of Fuji velvia 50 ~$7 per 36 shots
-Buy a nice Canon scanner 8800f ~$190
-scan your 35mm at 46 mega pixiels
-or just give your film to costco
awesome results
and you shoot at 46 MPX lol
biggrin.gif


an example of a picture taken with M6 + Velvia 50
[/FONT]http://www.flickr.com/photos/khunphiphat/1231474369/sizes/o/
 
On your figures, 1000 rolls of film = $7000. Use an M9 for 7 years and you need to shoot 133 rolls a year (not allowing for inflation, ho, ho.)

If you don't shoot much film, or if you don't want anything better than Costco, or if you have some fantasy that the M9 won't deliver slide-film quality in 7 years, and if you don't value your time (to-from lab, + scanning) and the M6/scanner route is an easy winner.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
I've always wondered why more folks don't do this workflow? The answers I get usually go like, "Because digital is better." So they buy a P&S to replace the Canon/Minolta/Nikon/Pentax SLR that's wasting away in their closet with all those wonderful lenses they just had to have 10 years ago. Before I retired in March, I worked at a magazine that advertised used cars for sale. Customers would bring in their cameras to me because they didn't know how th get the pix off the card. I'd look at the card and there would be 600 pictures on it!
Vic
 
take 7000 bucks, divide by your monthly discretionary income, and there you go: m9 for the middle class. :D
 
Today I paid nearly £10 for the d&p of a roll of Ektar I shot in my M3 with an old 50/1.5 Summarit in Greece last week and I'm delighted with the results. I'd love an M9 actually, having had no interest in the M8, but regret I won't be getting one straightaway.

I like using the M3 and old lenses as much as I'm sure I'd enjoy the M9 and modern lenses.
 
Last edited:
Dave Wilkinson said:
Who's the 'middle class' - these days?:confused:
Click to expand...

Dear Dave,

Everyone. No-one wants to admit to being too poor to afford an M9, or so rich that they can afford one easily. Or even to being able to afford an M9 if they were willing to make sacrifices alsewhere in their expenditure. They think they have a divine right to buy whatever they want, at whatever price they consider 'fair', regardless of economics and the reality of hand-manufacturing luxury goods.

For instance, one reason that high-end Zeiss (made in Germany) lenses and Leica lenses are comparable in price is that the focusing mounts are hand-lapped. Distressingly many either don't know what that means, or why it makes a difference.

All too often, 'middle class' is a code-word (or a pair of code words) for 'I can afford a new (ish) car, and a tarted-up MDF kitchen, and designer trainers, but I resent paying a fair price for a high-quality camera'.

Cheers,

R.
 
$7K is par for the course for a professional grade Digital camera these days. I paid $13K for a pair of D1x's when they were first out. I had a professional use for them, and a professional budget of $20K for camera bodies and lenses. Most of my photography at work is technical/scientific documentation. It would be hard to justify an M9 for it, and I will not.

If I really wanted a Leica M9 for home use, it would make testing J-3's and converted Sonnars a lot easier. Hard to justify $7K for that.
 
The most expensive digital camera i have ever bought is epson rd1s. It's dated by today's standards. its not perfect. and yet I dont see a need for m9 or even m8. it (rd1s) does everything I need. And does it well. For the rest - I have M5 and hexar RF cameras. Seems to work for me. ;)
 
AgentX said:
I'm amazed myself how many people don't count opportunity cost when figuring out what something's worth to them.
Click to expand...

don't value time ? opportunity cost?
do you guys use your leicas for work !!?? if so that's a really bad idea

I have a 5D mk 2 with $5K worth of lenses, I use that when I want quality picture and save time

If I use a leica it's for pure fun, everyday photography, it's a pleasure to scan the film and develop it, archive it and maybe play in the darkroom. I see that as fun not a laborious waste of time
 
Roger Hicks said:
No-one wants to admit to being too poor to afford an M9, or so rich that they can afford one easily. Or even to being able to afford an M9 if they were willing to make sacrifices alsewhere in their expenditure...
All too often, 'middle class' is a code-word (or a pair of code words) for 'I can afford a new (ish) car, and a tarted-up MDF kitchen, and designer trainers, but I resent paying a fair price for a high-quality camera'.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I try not to presume what others' priorities ought to be, or that people with money have no concept of value. I don't think it's true either that anyone who can afford an M9 should buy one, or that anyone who doesn't buy one is because they can't afford to. Although that sort of mindset is prevalent in bars, gyms, the internet, and wherever else men gather to flap their feathers ;)
 
Alright *slaps on devil's advocate hat*

I'm too poor for an M9. I'm too poor to have bought a newer car than my beat rusty 1988 Ford Escort.

But I'm not so poor that I couldn't afford a Leica M2 after some saving. Or the lenses in fact.

Roger's rough calculation was interesting because it made me think, do I shoot that much film a year?

I don't think I do.

Although it sounds quite low, I don't think I shoot more than 50, maybe 60 rolls tops a year (unless I have a big trip, e.g. I shot 15 rolls in 2 weeks for North Downs Way) but generally I have a few trips where I might shoot 3 rolls. Uusually though it's a roll every 2 outings; I'm quite selective but I get a good hit ratio these days.

Even so I'd need to factor in an inkjet with the M9 as I couldn't abide without doing my own printing, which is the bigger part of photography for me, more so than the camera although I enjoy taking photos.

So chances are in 10 years time I will have shot enough film and done enough printing at today's prices to have afforded an M9. But, I have a choice. Wait 10 years and buy an M9 or the then equivalent. Or keep doing my thing with what I enjoy, and have all that fun and experience being built.

I choose the latter because I have the freedom of being a keen amateur. There is no daily professional pressure to earn my crust through photography -- maybe one day, just depends on what the future holds.

Life's too short to be figuring out how to afford the things you can't afford yet when I'm fortunate enough as it is to own a Leica and 3 lenses as it is I figure. Plus the OM2n keeps the cost factor down a bit with its lovely Zuiko lenses that are excellent and that bit cheaper -- not suggesting as good as Leica glass but I've never yet sold or given someone a print only for them to say "Sorry but that's really poor quality, no thanks"

There again, I don't print 20x16 all the time as I only have so much wall space :)

And I'm damn proud of that '88 banger; never let me down yet *touch wood* without that, my photography would only be half of what it is :)

Vicky
 
anorphirith said:
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]BUY:
-Leica M6 ~$1300 mint
-buy some super sharp low aperture voigtlander lenses like the 50mm f/1.1 or the 35mm f/1.2 for less than $1000 each
-Buy a stock pile of Fuji velvia 50 ~$7 per 36 shots
-Buy a nice Canon scanner 8800f ~$190
-scan your 35mm at 46 mega pixiels
-or just give your film to costco
awesome results
and you shoot at 46 MPX lol
biggrin.gif


an example of a picture taken with M6 + Velvia 50
[/FONT]http://www.flickr.com/photos/khunphiphat/1231474369/sizes/o/
Click to expand...
Well, if I want to take pictures of flowers, the D40 in the cupboard is enough, worth about €150 and framing will be much more accurate than a rangefinder. ;)
 
Well I just got an M7 and with my CV 35/1.2, I feel I am in fat city. BTW Rog Costco does a hell of a nice job. I need to buy toilet paper anyway so Costco works for me. I must say that Leica's new cameras today look awesome. Way to go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom