Leica these days (a little rant)

If its any consolation to the OP I am sure the M11 will be out before not too long... so perhaps start saving for that one.
 
dave lackey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Dave,

There are many things I would love to own and use that I cannot afford. I don't blame the manufacturers for their prices. And I don't regret not having the money for them. I enjoy what I have.

I do have the cash for the M9. And my other cameras. Otherwise I wouldn't own them. I count myself as fortunate to be able to afford them. But if I couldn't afford an M9, I'd be using whatever other cameras I could afford without worrying about it.

I see little point to bemoaning what I lack because of what life serves up to me. I also see little point in exalting what I have because of what life serves up to me.

Do photography. Be happy.

G
 
Wow, why the barbed comment? So you don't like digital, but why not recognise that your arguments are not an absolute reflection of a universal truth. You argue that film is much cheaper, yet it transpires you actually have your own darkroom (which the OP may not). You say film is 'better' but now admit you have never seen a digital print that moves you (which shows you have not spent all that much time looking at the world's best photography).

All in all, you have failed to recognise on an objective level any of the perfectly legitimate reasons the OP may be seriously considering a move from film M to digital M.

Opinions and facts are different things. Opinions are affected by experience, ability and faith.


Ansel said:
If its any consolation to the OP I am sure the M11 will be out before not too long... so perhaps start saving for that one.
Click to expand...
 
Turtle said:
Wow, why the barbed comment? So you don't like digital, but why not recognise that your arguments are not an absolute reflection of a universal truth. You argue that film is much cheaper, yet it transpires you actually have your own darkroom (which the OP may not). You say film is 'better' but now admit you have never seen a digital print that moves you (which shows you have not spent all that much time looking at the world's best photography).

All in all, you have failed to recognise on an objective level any of the perfectly legitimate reasons the OP may be seriously considering a move from film M to digital M.

Opinions and facts are different things. Opinions are affected by experience, ability and faith.
Click to expand...

Well, I think you may have misread me, I was just stating my opinions based on my experience. Sorry if they trouble you. That was not my intention. I realise that others may not share my views but there you go. Such is life. There is room for all. Its not really a subject to get worked up about, and my comments were not barbed - sooner or later I guess there will be an M11, 12 or whatever. We cant always afford the latest kit but rest assured it will be outdated pretty soon so don't worry was they message I was trying to transmit.
 
Tom Diaz said:
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
Click to expand...

Speaking as a serious anti-digital guy, I have to second the vote for the GXR. Recently I rented one so that - for once - I could easily have same-day pics of a big event (my kid's senior prom).

I was able to use my Leica lenses on the GXR, namely DR Summicron and 21mm SA, NEITHER OF WHICH WILL WORK ON AN M9 (according to what I read). The GXR has logical and simple controls, and the there is a great histogram feature that helps you set exposure (I worked only in manual mode).

I got some decent images with it, and had them emailed to my daughter the same night.

All that said, I sent it back to lensrentals.com with a sense of relief. ;-(

Randy
 
I'm not anti film I still shoot film but not for work but the op did say 'I'm an aspiring professional photographer', does depend on what kind of photography he wants to do but if there is any kind of deadline then film is going to be tricky. Seems strange to put all that effort into saving up for an M9 when there are a million other digital alternatives much much cheaper and still keep the m6 for personal work.
 
As a working professional photographer who uses a variety of equipment on a daily basis, my best advice is rent. There are several fantastic rental companies online and in-store rental places all over the world. As you get jobs, and are charging correctly, you can afford to rent. The clients pay for the gear. Early on you just might not be able to show that as a line item on your estimates. It's let's you use the best tools for the job depending on the assignment.

I own strictly what I use every day most often and rent lenses, and other equipment regularly for jobs. I saved for 4 years for my first digital Leica. I always have it with me on assignments, and shoot a lot of pro work with it...but it's just not the right tool for all my work. I've learned not to force it either. I use the right equipment to make my clients happy and get the job done right, and then use whatever equipment makes me happy for my own pleasure.

Lensrentals.com has just about the entire Leica M line up and their lenses always come in great calibration so far. I use them, highly recommended.

Biggest advice I can give for an aspiring professional...know your worth. Price correctly. And don't tie "self-worth" and esteem into that. You want to be a business, then be a business and know what you need to bring home at the end of a shoot to make it worth it. You'll be able to but whatever you like eventually. Good luck!
 
AncientCityPhoto said:
Lensrentals.com has just about the entire Leica M line up and their lenses always come in great calibration so far. I use them, highly recommended.
Click to expand...

You mean the entire *digital* Leica M line up. I don't see a single M2, M3, M4, M5, M6, M7, or MP on their site. But then of course, what "pro" would be caught dead using a film Leica...

As expected, the lens line-up is pretty decent though.
 
Turtle said:
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.
Click to expand...
So in other words, carrying 100 rolls of film on a plane trip is a pain in the ass - but carrying a laptop, charger for the laptop, charger for your digital camera, extra camera batteries and an external hard drive, USB cable and AC adapter for the hard drive is a joyous experience, right?? :rolleyes:

Regarding film developing costs, if you develop B&W at home the cost is around $0.35 per roll for chemistry. If you shoot E6, top notch professional lab developing can be had for $7.00 per roll ( http://www.agximaging.com/ ) or you can do it at home for a cost of around $6.00/roll (last time I checked). Professional C41 processing for 35mm is $5.75/roll
( http://www.northcoastphoto.com/ ).

All four are a far cry from $10.00 per roll...
 
So in other words, carrying 100 rolls of film on a plane trip is a pain in the ass - but carrying a laptop, charger for the laptop, charger for your digital camera, extra camera batteries and an external hard drive, USB cable and AC adapter for the hard drive is a joyous experience, right??
Click to expand...


A lot easier than carrying a darkroom! :D
 
noisycheese said:
So in other words, carrying 100 rolls of film on a plane trip is a pain in the ass - but carrying a laptop, charger for the laptop, charger for your digital camera, extra camera batteries and an external hard drive, USB cable and AC adapter for the hard drive is a joyous experience, right?? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You don't need to carry all that crap.

On my last three week photo trip, I carried:

  • camera
  • three lenses
  • iPad mini
  • two spare batteries for the camera
  • charger for the camera
  • charger for the iPad mini
  • enough card storage to capture 4000 exposures

It fit in a A&A ACAM 7100 bag. My cell phone, spare glasses, Moleskine notebook, travel papers, a couple of pens, and all associated cables to transfer photos to the iPad from the camera or phone also all fit in the same bag. Total weight was under 7 lbs, and there was never the remotest possibility of damage to my images from Xray exposure at airport, bus, train, or ferry terminals.

100 rolls of film would have weighed more and would have only captured at most 3600 exposures. And be a liability at every single baggage check station.

Never mind all the good things about being able to check my work before I've left the site, which costs a buncha money and time to get to again if I have to go back... Or the fact that the iPad mini meant I could stay in touch with anything I needed to, book trains, planes, hotels, etc on the go, etc.

Traveling with film cameras is an utterly different experience.

G
 
Dunn said:
I'm aspiring to work in journalism so it's hard to get work and use an M6.
Click to expand...

Well, this is the key then. It depends how serious you are. If you are doing to do more than "aspire" - I mean if you are really going to aggressively pursue this, then you will need a camera that can do the job. Any beginning journalist is going to have to handle a variety of assignments, probably interning for pathetic pay at a small paper to start - if you are very lucky and talented... no Leica RF camera can do what is expected of a photojournalism intern these days. No long lenses, for one thing.
 
It's simple, You will never get a black and white image with the M9 close to wet prints, that grey scale is just impossible to reproduce with a digital camera, even more difficult if You see a MF negative...
 
Fraser said:
Who cares about the quality of exhibition prints the OP wants to get into journalism!
Click to expand...

Because some people simply cannot accept that technology has moved pass them. What's even funnier is that if OP is going to even make it in journalism, he's going to have go digital at some point in his workflow or he ain't going to get any money.
 
NazgulKing said:
Unfortunately, silver gelatin prints ain't going to cut it in the commercial world these days. And if they are even made, they'd be digitally scanned and we are back to square one.

You could go on and on all you want but the world has moved on.
Click to expand...

Personally I don't really care what other people use, and what "the world" is using. Use whatever makes you happy. After all the results Atget achieved using "outdated" glass plates were never surpassed IMO. No doubt he was told at the time that "the world had moved on" and that he should stop being such a dinosaur and use film... LOL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom