Leica M9 or Hassey CFV-39 digital back

Frank Petronio said:
The biggest factor in being successful with your digital camera is knowing how to use Photoshop and Bridge (or Aperture, Lightroom, etc.). Give me good Photoshop technique and a $500 Best Buy camera will outshine a poser with a $40K medium format digital every time.
Click to expand...

I disagree on this one - digital photography is still photography - you don't have to be great at using software to make great photos with a digital camera :)
 
Right now in China the M9 body and that new Leaf back with the Mamiya 645 and 80mm lens combo set are the same price. If it came down to which I would buy, I probably would get the medium format setup because it is so much more expandable for future use. As much as I like and want the M9, even though I got a bunch of lenses that can be used on it now....its a hard pill to swallow compared to that Mamiya and the Leaf back...
 
venchka said:
For the difference in price, you could take the D700 around the world. Maybe more than once. What would that do for your photography? Or add to your Nikkor lens inventory. Or buy a car to transport the D700 & lenses. And gain about 3-4-5 stops of usable ISO sensitivity.
Click to expand...

But that would not help keep Leica in business. :)

They need profits so they will make a 35mm Nocti.
 
You would like to think so.

You would like to think so.

xxloverxx said:
I disagree on this one - digital photography is still photography - you don't have to be great at using software to make great photos with a digital camera :)
Click to expand...

A RAW file straight out of the camera is useless. Actually, worse than useless, closer to dangerous. Software skills and more software titles than Photoshop can turn useless RAW files into large gorgeous prints. Heck, printing digtial files is a sub-skillset all it's own. The best PSD file in the world will look like dog-pooh if the person printing the file doesn't know what they are doing. Or picks a bad paper. Too many variables if you ask me. But you didn't.

Cheers!

What Frank said. :D :cool:

Spend money on becoming a better photographer. Take your cameras on trips.
 
Oh good grief.

Oh good grief.

johnastovall said:
...

They need profits so they will make a 35mm Nocti.
Click to expand...

Now that the megapixel race has morphed into the mega-ISO race, f/5.6 zoom lenses on digital cameras can operate in the same enviornment as the Noctilux. For about .1% of the cost of a Noctilux.

Meanwhile, the C/V 35mm/1.2 Noctisummiclone is working just fine.
 
Simbad said:
As of this moment Lightroom does not yet have a colour profile for the M9.
Capture One (latest upgrade) does and it is very very good with M9 RAW files. I wouldn't hesitate to go straight to C1 myself. I am thinking seriously about buying an M9, that is unless a Zeiss full frame alternative comes to market with the latest Sony Exmoor R processor!;)
Click to expand...
That omission is very easily fixed, see my post here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81388 Perhaps it's too easy to generate numerous M9 profiles and get them for various ISOs, lenses, lighting etc. :D

Bob.
 
Thanks for all of your suggestions.

Frank, I will take your advice. Each time I think I want a digital camera (when new stuff like the new Nikon D3S comes out), I get all excited but eventually I just think film is all I need. I am going to shoot my Hassie tonight for my daughter's 6th birthday using Acros.

I think the whole digital processing is too time consuming and intimidating to learn as I am still honing my darkroom skills. If I ever go color, I will get a digital. I have about 10 Leica M lenses and over 30 Nikkor lenses so it will be easy to go either way.
 
venchka said:
Now that the megapixel race has morphed into the mega-ISO race, f/5.6 zoom lenses on digital cameras can operate in the same enviornment as the Noctilux. For about .1% of the cost of a Noctilux.
Click to expand...

I would certainly be interested in seeing a shot taken with a $10 (new) zoom at 25,000 ISO that is as good as a Leica M9 shot taken with the outrageously expensive new Noctilux at 640 ISO.

...not that I'm ever going to lay out the money for that Noctilux. My old, outdated nearly40 yr. old f/1 will have to do.
 
venchka said:
A RAW file straight out of the camera is useless. Actually, worse than useless, closer to dangerous. Software skills and more software titles than Photoshop can turn useless RAW files into large gorgeous prints. Heck, printing digtial files is a sub-skillset all it's own. The best PSD file in the world will look like dog-pooh if the person printing the file doesn't know what they are doing. Or picks a bad paper. Too many variables if you ask me. But you didn't.
Click to expand...

If you substitute the word film for the word file and the words develop or darkroom for software the message in this paragraph doesn't really change.

Hmmm...
 
It's a very interesting discussion this.

I also have a Hasselblad 203 FE with ditto lenses, I even have a 35 years old 500C/M with a similar range of lenses, and a 905SWC. Together with 160 ISO Kodak negative film and my Nikon 8000 ED scanner they produce files which are strikingly similar, in resolution, to the ones that comes out of my Canon 1Ds III. The Canon takes the lead when higher ISO is applied, though.

I will not sell my Hasselblad gear. The money you can get for it in today's 2.hand market really does not reflect the 'real' value, I think. Instead I am waiting 'at the mouth of the Norwegian 2.hand camera gear market', - like saltwater crocodile, ready to snatch up a 2.hand digital back that can be used with my excellent Hasselblad gear. Then it will get a new life. Because, the sad thing is that it is very little used. Despite the quality level and joy of using the Hasselblad gear, my digital gear, the Canon 1Ds III and my M8 are my first choice of convenience. Even though I am no 'professor' of the digital darkroom.

It would be very difficult for me to choose between a good 2.hand CFV (even a 16 mill pixel) and new M9. I most likely would have gone for the CFV...
 
I think you have gotten ahead of yourself. I made some top quality 11x14 colour prints from a Nikon D40 - 6MP camera. A medium format digital back is an overkill for this kind of print size. Hence, it boils down to what camera would you willingly carry around and use for your digital shooting. While a full format Leica is certainly a great option, you might as well consider any 10MP or better DSLR, as well as Leica M8 and even the Epson RD1. There would be the crop factor to deal with in case of smaller sensors, but it is not all as bad as it looks. If you go for a DSLR I would suggest a Sony,Nikon or Canon mount, as you could use the great Zeiss glass with these.
 
Something to bear in mind is that the digital medium format market is now beginning to develop with MF cameras with built in sensors rather than detachable backs. Mamiya has just launched it's latest two cameras and Pentax has one on the way. These are likely to be not much more expensive (if as much) as M9 with at least twice the sensor area in a package the size of the full frame Canon and Nikon models,...so things are beginning to look up for those of us who want to make really large prints.
 
Bugleone said:
Something to bear in mind is that the digital medium format market is now beginning to develop with MF cameras with built in sensors rather than detachable backs. Mamiya has just launched it's latest two cameras and Pentax has one on the way.
Click to expand...

Pentax has had it on the way for something like half a decade now, though, and has been producing nothing but mock-ups. Seeing that Pentax has apparently begun to concentrate more on producing DSLRs in flashy Hello-Kitty-esque plastic and with things like improved watercolour filters built into the firmware, I don't hold my breath for serious medium format developments from them

The Leica S2 is nice though, if a tad expensive.
 
I recently had a chance to bid on a CFV16 back, it ended up going for $3500. I was -very- tempted to buy it, but I didn't. I have four old V-Hasselblads and the entire range of T* lenses (including the 30mm fisheye!) so I could easily justify it. But I will wait, I will get one eventually. I still enjoy using film (have a freezer full of it), and have recently rediscovered instant photography, so the instant chemical gratification is possible for me with these cameras. I'm happy for now.
 
Last edited:
danielnorton said:
the back rotates, so you don't have to turn the camera.
Click to expand...
Wow
Now that is interesting!
Personally I am watching the digital back situation very carefully as i can not easilly part with my hassie gear. I have not put any colour film through it for a very long time but regularly shoot black and white film. Simple pleasures.
Surely there must be a market for a less expensive digital back option eventually.
If so Hassy gear will rise in price so hang onto it what ever else you sell.

Richard
 
Bugleone said:
Something to bear in mind is that the digital medium format market is now beginning to develop with MF cameras with built in sensors rather than detachable backs. Mamiya has just launched it's latest two cameras and Pentax has one on the way.
Click to expand...

Not true. The two new Mamiyas still have detachable backs which can be mounted on a view camera or a RZIIProD with the right adapter. Most MF manufacturers are moving towards closed systems which means that there's no interchangeability between different camera brands/systems but that doesn't mean that they have fixed backs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom