Hey guys,
This is definitely a me just wanting a digital M. I don't think that I need one. I just think that I work the best with my M6 so therefore I think a digital M would be my digital of choice. I'm not planning on even trying to get one soon. The point is, I would just like to try one out to see if it even matches my experience with the M6. Like some of you have said I will probably go with Nikon (I hate the size though) or possibly an x-pro in the future. Looking out for the x-pro 2.
Also, some one said they have no sympathy for me because I have an M6, X100 and Ricoh GR. I definitely worked a ****ty restaurant job for every piece of camera equipment I own. I never received anything as a gift. And I take my purchases seriously. The Ricoh GR was the first brand new camera I've bought in maybe 5+ years.
I'm aspiring to work in journalism so it's hard to get work and use an M6. For personal work it's my go to camera. I usually use my X100, but I will need something more versatile in the future.
I know you guys are right and I shouldn't get hung up on Leica, but, I can't help but want a digital one. And like I said, it will probably be a long time before I ever get one or possibly never. I just had to rant about it a little.
Dunn, I've read all ten pages of this thread so far, and much of it has little or nothing to do with
your "rant" and has degenerated into the digital-film debate. Flash's posts are excellent, and there have been a couple of other gems along the way too. I'm going to try to address your situation.
I've been a "pro" since 1970, the definition of "pro" being "earning some or all of your income from photography." I started shooting weddings with a Mamiya C220. Shooting weddings, BTW, is merely a combination of photojournalism and fine arts work. It was YEARS before I could afford a
used Hassy 500cm system. Color 35mm films just weren't up to handling weddings then. That changed by the late '80s. I was a Navy photographer from '74-'79 and used my first Leicas there. I had a Canon IIF and four lenses before that, though. I learned my craft on coincident-rangefinder cameras, and I'm still very comfortable with them. When digital was in its relative infancy, I was shooting weddings with Olympus e10 and e20n 4 and 5mp cameras. A Leica will work just as well for weddings. Don't let anyone tell you any differently. They work
differently than DSLRs, and your shooting style will be VERY different, but they work just as well. Shooting with a rangefinder is about tailoring your shooting style to make the most of the camera. It's not that the equipment isn't competent, it's that most photographers aren't comfortable making the transition from the way they shoot DSLRs to do what is required to do the job shooting coincident rangefinders.
I'm still a generalist "working pro" and currently have an M8, M9, and M4-P in my kit along with 5 CV lenses and three '60s vintage Leitz lenses. I have a Visoflex III. That IS my entire kit and
I have about $12k in it all. Of course, new replacement value would be two or three times that, but I shopped for good deals. I no longer have a DSLR at all. I have about $50k in my photo-equipment inventory including a darkroom and studio gear. I know the limitations of my gear, and I know MY limitations and so far I haven't had a commercial job I haven't been able to accomplish with just this gear. You can, in fact, be a "pro" with just about
any equipment that is competent. You just have to know how to use it. I shoot Leicas exclusively because I'm comfortable with them and they work for me. That's all your gear needs to do, whatever the brand.
An M240/M9-P is competitively priced with the current top-end pro offerings from Canon and Nikon. I won't discuss "value for the dollar" of each because there are as many opinions as there are photographers. Suffice it to say that few "generalist" pro photographers buy the top-of-the-line gear new. It isn't necessary, and your income level will dictate that its not financially feasable. ALL of my gear I bought used. You do, in fact, need at least two bodies so that if you have a failure, you can complete the job. I've had a Canon 28-105 USM lens fail on a wedding. I had another lens in my bag with a similar range that I continued shooting with. Occasionally, you need to shoot two bodies on a job. I run two bodies for weddings... one on a tripod with a long lens during the ceremony... the other hand held.
Frankly having a good, reliable studio lighting setup is more important than the brand of camera you shoot with. As long as you're comfortable with your camera brand, and you know its nuances inside and out, you can perform for your clients. I knew a guy in the early '70s who did in-home child portraiture with a Praktica and a 50mm Zeiss Jena. He produced quality work, and NO ONE would ever have accused the Praktica of pretending to be a "pro" camera.
Shooting exclusively coincident rangefinders has both its up and down sides. There are a few jobs I won't take on that I might have with a DSLR (something requiring a really long lens for example) but not much. I use them because I'm just more comfortable shooting with them and I know how to work around their limitations. I had to learn how to work around the limitations of SLRs (and believe me, they have limitations as well.) My kit weighs half what my DSLR kit weighed, takes 1/3 the physical space, and does the job just as well or better for my clients. It's also allowed me to work almost exclusively in available light, and use selective focus much more effectively, which I could seldom do with slow zooms on my DSLRs.
The replies from "Pro" photographers are always of interest for me on these kinds of threads because each one has his/her own business model that has evolved, and they have bought the gear that works for them. Unfortunately many think that their gear will work for everyone and that's just not the case.
Frankly the digital-flim debate is just so much BS. One is NOT "better" than the other... they both have their place in the world. They are each tools to meet a need in the market place. You shoot what the job requires, and you need the skills to do both. I daresay though that 99% of your "pro" work will be digital (whether native or scanned) because your clients will want files rather than prints, and they want the product NOW. Digital delivery can provide them almost instant product, and at least in MY world, that demand is becoming more and more common. The world has changed in the past 10 years, and (other than in the fine arts arena) the way final product is delivered and viewed has changed.
Photo-journalist jobs as we've traditionally known them are going the way of the buggy-whip manufacturers. I shot for a weekly paper some years ago and the pay was abysmal, but the experience was worth its weight in gold. The recent Chicago Sun-Times lay-off of twenty-two photo staffers is a harbinger of things to come. Those experienced staffers are your competition for the few remaining traditional pho-jo jobs out there.
I don't think there's a norm in pho-jo any more, but it's worth mentioning that some print newspapers still buy their own photo equipment and assign it to their staffers... so regardless of what YOU like, you may end up working with issued gear anyway.
My advice is to follow your dream, but have a back-up plan at which you can still earn a living. There are still careers to be made in imaging... it's just a different career than it was when I started out forty years ago. Do your homework. See what others are doing successfully, and then do it yourself, in your own way. Be practical about it, always keep your eye on your financial bottom-line, and have fun working.
Good luck!
