Leica these days (a little rant)

[Range-rover]

Enjoy your M6 and don't worry about what they have. In time you'll have it too, but
don't think about it.

Range

 

[noisycheese]

Does your camera realy need to be digital? The problem with the new Leica M is, that it is just another digital camera. That means it is in use for about 2 or 3 years an then most digital Ms were found in second hand area. It is clearly visible, that the shelfs at my local dealer get filled with M8s, M8.2s and M9s. Keep in mind, that every Leica M was very expensive and used by professionals. Normal consumer don't buy a Leica. So you can notice, that digital speeds up product cycles and Leica is now in that business too. If you buy a digital M today, I am sure that you won't use it for 10 years like you do with your M6 now. In a period of ten yours will at least have 2 digital Ms. And Leica certainly wants to speed up product cycles. They claim a shutter lifetime of about 500.000 clicks for the new M. But who needs a heavy duty shutter, when you buy every 2 or 3 years a new camera?
For me it doesn't make sense to buy a M.

There is an underlying assumption being made by most who have weighed in here that you simply HAVE GOT to shoot digital - whether or not it is a Leica M digital.

To that assumption, I would have to say au contraire.

Let's look at some facts: The M sells for $6950 USD. The Leica M Monochrom sells for $7950 USD.

On the other hand, your M6 will cost you $0 USD, since it's already paid for.

Film costs from $4.29 (Kodak Tti-X) to $7.58 (Fujifilm Pro 400H) per roll.
Yes, developing and printing costs money. B&W costs somewhere around $0.35 per roll to develop at home. Developing C-41 will cost about $1.70 per roll.

Just sayin'.

 

[Robin3mj]

If you can't make stunning (digital) images with a (digital) non-Leica camera, then the most expensive, newest Leica won't matter a bit.

 

[aizan]

build up your business with the cameras you have and can afford. eventually you'll be able to buy whatever camera you want, whether it's a leica or a phase back, and you'll be glad to know that it was truly warranted. 😎

 

[clayne]

There is an underlying assumption being made by most who have weighed in here that you simply HAVE GOT to shoot digital - whether or not it is a Leica M digital.

To that assumption, I would have to say au contraire.

Let's look at some facts: The M sells for $6950 USD. The Leica M Monochrom sells for $7950 USD.

On the other hand, your M6 will cost you $0 USD, since it's already paid for.

Film costs from $4.29 (Kodak Tti-X) to $7.58 (Fujifilm Pro 400H) per roll.
Yes, developing and printing costs money. B&W costs somewhere around $0.35 per roll to develop at home. Developing C-41 will cost about $1.70 per roll.

Just sayin'.

Trust me, they don't want to hear it. It can be said over and over again that one needn't change anything at all and just continue with what they're already using - but instead people would rather Buy New Sh1t in hopes it'll improve their photography.

7000$ on a single camera that'll be worth 2k$ in less than 5 years? What are people smoking? "But everyone else is doing it!"

No wonder the majority of photography mostly sucks these days.

 

[Ansel]

While i do recognize that scanning, cropping, and spotting does take measurable time, many of the people stating that the "processing stages" of film take up time they could be using for money discount the fact that they're not just popping in cards and printing out digital images without hours of screwing around with RAW files. This time is not overlappable with other tasks. Waiting for film to dry is an overlappable time stop, waiting for scans to end is semi-overlappable. In the end digital can end up faster or slower overall depending on subject matter and technical approach but I don't think it's an instant gain of 4-8 hours or anything like that.

Indeed, when digital first appeared many photogs boasted they could have wedding pics ready by the time the couple left for their honeymoon the next morning... but nowadays its more like several weeks later after they have spent xxx hours in PS.

Me, I shoot and print.🙂

Most digital images never leave a computer screen/DVD.

Digital is a constant treadmill of cameras, lenses and computers and you still have to pay for prints at the end of it.

 

[btgc]

Indeed, when digital first appeared many photogs boasted they could have wedding pics ready by the time the couple left for their honeymoon the next morning... but nowadays its more like several weeks later after they have spent xxx hours in PS.

In a local lab I were told here's a wedding pro, who shoots digital and film. 10-20 prints from film are handed to newlyweds before they leave to honeymoon and while they are away gnomes in a cave work on disk with digital pics. Essentially they end up with film prints for themselves and DVD gets dumped somewhere on shelves and sent out for guests. This way they get nice memories and guests can once go through hundreds of pictures to see how nice they looked that day.

 

[Ansel]

In a local lab I were told here's a wedding pro, who shoots digital and film. 10-20 prints from film are handed to newlyweds before they leave to honeymoon and while they are away gnomes in a cave work on disk with digital pics. Essentially they end up with film prints for themselves and DVD gets dumped somewhere on shelves and sent out for guests. This way they get nice memories and guests can once go through hundreds of pictures to see how nice they looked that day.

Excellent. Very funny. Seriously though, digital has made people crazy. My parents wedding album has 25 black and white prints in it, shot using a large format camera in the 1960s, each image is a work of art. The album plays music when you open it.

 

[Turtle]

Seems there is a lot of bias against digital here. I shoot both and love film, but think the arguments being made are not impartial.

You cannot compare a new M9 price with a 'no cost M6'. Thats ridiculous.

A used M9 may be $4000. A used really clean M6 is about $1100. This is a price difference of $2900, which is still a lot of money, but it is not the $7-8K some are touting. The OP can sell his M6 and buy a used M9.

If you shoot B&W:

$110+ Total cost of 20x16 exhibition quality fibre print from film
$30 Cost of high quality digital print on fibre paper through somewhere like Photospace. All you have to do is calibrate to their output. Proofs are dirt cheap.

The above ignores the price of buying film and developing it, but if we call that $10 a roll (chems, equipment, film etc) then we have a differential of $90.

$2900 / 90 = 32 prints.

Even if you dispute my numbers and call it 50... 60...70 prints, that is not many prints before digital covers the outlay. All this assumes zero cost for the M9 if you sell it, but the truth is there would be some residual price differential if the camera is sold in the next 3 years, say.

Digital allows you to travel with less bulk (if you are smart). 100 rolls of film is a pain in the ass, especially through airports.

You can upload projects digitally in a fraction of the time.

You can work on projects on a laptop anywhere in the world, rather than have to wait to return home, develop, print, scan etc. Having photographed for 7 years in Afghanistan using predominantly film, I speak from experience.

Don't get me wrong, I love film. I adore it. I even prefer it, but lets not be selective with our arguments. Then there is the hassle factor. If you print your own work, you need a darkroom, or to travel (and pay for) one. Digital can be done in a phone box if need be.

If you work in colour all the numbers change and it will take longer to recover digital costs, assuming you scan your negs and print digitally, but IMHO scanning B&W film and printing digitally has drawbacks of its own (but certainly some benefits); however, IMHO, if shooting film, go all the way and make a silver print.

If I were the OP, I would be tempted by the M9 only if I could afford it. I might sell a my X100 and M6 to make the numbers easier to swallow, but then again I probably would stick with film for a little while longer just to be sure. I too own an X100 and while it is great, it is nothing like shooting an M rangefinder.

Its also rather sad to see the OP framed as a 'spoilt amateur' because heaven knows I've worked my ass off to buy my MM and I had bloody good reasons for doing so. None had anything to do with thinking it would make me a better photographer.

Trust me, they don't want to hear it. It can be said over and over again that one needn't change anything at all and just continue with what they're already using - but instead people would rather Buy New Sh1t in hopes it'll improve their photography.

7000$ on a single camera that'll be worth 2k$ in less than 5 years? What are people smoking? "But everyone else is doing it!"

No wonder the majority of photography mostly sucks these days.

 

[Ansel]

I dispute those numbers of course. All my work is analogue and costs nowhere near the figures you have quoted. Believe my I have tried digital but the time and money wasted on computer work is just not worth it. Oh yes and the images don't look very good IMO. But each to his or her own. There is room for all.

 

[OurManInTangier]

RFF has become little more than a film vs digital debate (cum bitch-fest.) Seriously effing tiresome now.

 

[henri klein]

If you can't make stunning (digital) images with a (digital) non-Leica camera, then the most expensive, newest Leica won't matter a bit.

You talk photography - but the question was all about possession.

 

[Godfrey]

... You cannot compare a new M9 price with a 'no cost M6'. Thats ridiculous. ...

I agree. If you're going to compare a new M9 price with a film M price, pick one that's still in production.

New Leica M body prices from B&H Photo:

• Leica M7, MP $4995
• Leica ME $5450
• Leica M (type 240) $6950
• Leica M Monochrom $7950

Discounting the Monochrom as a specialty camera, you have a choice from $5000 for a film M to $6950 for the top of the line digital M, with a more modest $5500 digital body, with less capabilities, in the middle.

Comparing a new M price against a 20-30 year old used film M price is misleading. Buying an older M ... like my M4-2 ... means getting a lot of bang for the buck but also ... like my M4-2 ... needing service and repair (I've already had the viewfinder overhauled, the shutter is next ...). And no warranty. And, oh yeah, every thirty-six shots you have to replace the sensor, and pay to retrieve your images from the old one... These costs add up. ;-)

G

 

[Turtle]

Do you print your own fibre prints?

If not, what do you pay for a really top quality 20x16 fibre print? What are your numbers?

As for digital work not being 'worth it', not everyone can produce digital images that are worth it, but plenty can. Its more down to the photographer not the process. I have seen stunning digital B&W work, although on balance I prefer film. I would certainly not claim that great digital (B&W) work is not possible. That's absurd.

I dispute those numbers of course. All my work is analogue and costs nowhere near the figures you have quoted. Believe my I have tried digital but the time and money wasted on computer work is just not worth it. Oh yes and the images don't look very good IMO. But each to his or her own. There is room for all.

 

[Ansel]

I print my own work. I have yet to see ANY digital images that have really moved me.

 

[Godfrey]

I print my own work. I have yet to see ANY digital images that have really moved me.

I'm sorry for your loss.

G

 

[Ansel]

I'm sorry for your loss.

G

Not sure how you loose something if you never had it to start with... LOL.

I am afraid I am an analogue die-hard. Film for photography and records for music. As it should be 🙂

 

[dave lackey]

Am I the only one? I don't think so.😉 I would much prefer to own an M9 as my one and only camera, along with a decent film M for special work. But, folks, seriously, coming up with any extra cash after paying rent, food, monthly bills and now medical bills is impossible. Sure, I can get $850 for the M3, $150 for the R4 and $500 for the X1 which still leaves me three months of my total fixed income to actually buy an M9. And that is without paying for rent, food, monthly bills and now medical bills...An M8 is not even in consideration. Counting pennies never stops.

Some of YOU may have money stashed away to make up the difference. I don't. Some of YOU may have a job where you can save up several thousand dollars for an M9 (used), I don't. Some of YOU can sell/trade up. I cannot.

So, NO, this is not a film v digital argument from me. It is merely what is possible financially. I can forego meals and even clothes (haven't bought any new clothes since 2008) or even sell off a little something left to pay for film and chemicals each month. Scanner cost is zero. My 11 year old Dell is working fine with hi-res scans so no computer upgrade is needed for my film work or for my digital work with the X1.

Does the OP really want to go digital RF? If so, great! Work hard and save and buy it. I do not have that option. Maybe there are others here with the same situation or just can't "justify" it...whatever that really means.

But just because some on here can afford a digital M and scoff at others who cannot come up with the cash to buy an M9, there is no reason to think that a film M system is not viable. For me, it is the only option if I want a Leica system with interchangeable lenses and I do.:angel: I do not even consider another brand or system...just not for me.

"If only" is not real life for me...24/7 caregiving and squeezing in the time late at night, giving up hours of sleep for photography is. And I consider it an honor to do so.

 

[Tom Diaz]

Suggest you try a Ricoh GXR. Even though it has been discontinued you can still buy a new one. The GXR with the M-mount module costs a lot less than a digital M! (Get the electronic viewfinder also!)

The resale value probably will be good for a while unless Ricoh reintroduces M-mount products, which would be a wonderful development anyway. Ricoh obviously has perfected ALL the technology needed to produce a superb lower-cost M-mount digital camera. It'd just be a matter of being willing to market it to a relatively narrow set of customers.

With the GXR you have an excellent APS-C digital camera to use with your Leica lenses. It's a better camera, in my opinion, than the Epson ever was. In fact, in many ways it's a better camera than the M8 I used to have. No optical RF but no stupid UV/IR filters either. Plus, is has that excellent focus-peaking feature.

I sympathize with you. I still love shooting with my M6 also, but the cost and availability of film, and film processing, is getting to be a real pain. I do not want to limit myself to shooting B&W film and developing it myself. Even if I did, the film is not cheap.

Tom

 

[Michael Markey]

RFF has become little more than a film vs digital debate (cum bitch-fest.) Seriously effing tiresome now.

I agree Simon .
New people who are familiar with this sort of sterile debate bringing it here from other places perhaps.