Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
True ... and the way this thread has become a digital verses film rant (once again) over the last page or so is tedious.
btgc
Veteran
If each post would cost as much as one exposure does people would shoot more than chat, myself including 
shanenoir
Established
If each post would costs as much as one exposure does people would shoot more than chat, myself including
Amen brother. Of course, the past of posts is paper, the future is digital!
Ansel
Well-known
So why read it? The OP did say it was a "rant" in the title and the opening post was whether to replace a film camera with a digital one... three or four pages in its the same discussion, just more focussed on one aspect.
I never understand comments like the above. Plenty of other threads to read if you don't like this one.
Clearly the digital/film debate has plenty of life in it yet. I think the video posted on a previous page is quite telling, you still can use film to set yourself apart from the crowd. Its still a valid option. Have you seen the latest Lee Freelander work, all shot using a Bessa R4A and VC 21mm lens.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I've got nothing against discussion because as you say it is a valid one and it does still have plenty of life in it.
It's the myopic preaching that I don't like!
NazgulKing
Established
I won't be surprised that there was a similar opinion about 35mm film and Leicas when they came out vis a vis large format which was the norm back then.
garygraphy
Established
good news is the M9 is dropping in price as more people move the the M body
i think the M9 is still a fantastic body. gotta love that ccd clarity!
i think the M9 is still a fantastic body. gotta love that ccd clarity!
Ansel
Well-known
Yes, indeed. I think if you look back at the history of photography itself, it was considered to be unnatural compared to traditional drawing/painting! People feared the camera would take their souls.
clayne
shoot film or die
Right - because no one makes silver gelatin prints nor mattes and frames them for viewing? I'm not talking about the consumer commercial world of mom and dad's shots being pumped out on inkjet printers (BTW: RA-4 is the majority use technology for consumer prints, not inkjet). I'm talking professional level photography - the things you see at exhibitions and galleries or even your own home. Do you even go to galleries or exhibitions? You're spouting ignorance if you think you're not seeing silver gelatin paper being used as your comment about "if they're even being made" is a bit of a laugh. Secondly, they're not going to be digitally scanned for anything - as the print is being made to be looked at as the final product. Sure, some are scanned after the fact, but that's indirect and not the means to an end.
Look I'd also rather not have yet another film vs digital argument - but the OP asked "why is everything so expensive" because he's not adequately thinking outside the box by sticking with what he has and learning how to do something to minimize costs. Instead it's entirely focused on how to get an M9 because group-think tells him it's the thing to do. Think outside the box.
I'm surprised no one has even touched the aspect of "journalism" or "photojournalism" possibly being a dead end even in itself (sadly, I wish it weren't).
Ansel
Well-known
Yes, and a lot of folks prefer it over the 240 for image quality.
Ansel
Well-known
dct
perpetual amateur
So many opinions here... Why not also mine?
Do I own a M9? Or better: a M-240? No. But not because I wouldn't like the jump from analog M body (Hexar RF) to a digital body (with same field of view: only Leica). It is just because I can't afford it yet.
If I could, I would go for the new M-240, get the right adapters and forget my other equipment for macro and tele work. And I would still keep my analog RF film bodies. Just because I like the work with it.
Back to the topic: Am I ranting because of this "would-could" situation? No. Until I have the required bucks I enjoy every week my film equipment.
I don't think too often at the new possiblities with a M-240. Well, mostly, until I read discussions like here...
Do I own a M9? Or better: a M-240? No. But not because I wouldn't like the jump from analog M body (Hexar RF) to a digital body (with same field of view: only Leica). It is just because I can't afford it yet.
If I could, I would go for the new M-240, get the right adapters and forget my other equipment for macro and tele work. And I would still keep my analog RF film bodies. Just because I like the work with it.
Back to the topic: Am I ranting because of this "would-could" situation? No. Until I have the required bucks I enjoy every week my film equipment.
I don't think too often at the new possiblities with a M-240. Well, mostly, until I read discussions like here...
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Cameras don't do that? You wouldn't know it from recent well-publicised reactions to photographers.
...Mike
user237428934
User deletion pending
So many recommendations that the TO should keep his camera. Does ist make sense? If you start a photography business today and you can only offer film results then you cut away a lot of potential customers.
thegman
Veteran
Perhaps, but he could also offer digital by simply purchasing a cheap DSLR, or use his existing digital cameras.
I think the thing is that what works in business for some people, does not work for others. There are people out there making money on film, not as many as digital of course, but if it's paying their bills, then that is what works for them.
It's easy to come up with stats, and easy to come up with comparisons, but the only thing that works is the thing that works. That thing will be different for everybody.
btgc
Veteran
If one starts a pho biz with a Leica paid through the nose and have to set prices higher than ones expected to bring main part of customers then results can be as bad.
Moons ago we had here laundry service who used luxury limo to pick up laundry to be washed. They bet on customers wanting something special. They didn't keep afloat as 99.9% of customers don't really care make of car their laundry will travel in nor make of other gear - be it cheapo LG or expensive Miele. They want their laundry back clean.
I'm not saying Leica is wrong tool, no. If one finds niche with enough paying customers things will go uphill.
thejameskendall
Established
I don't think this is true. A Leica is too niche a camera for professional use, and too expensive to get a return on your investment. I'd be surprised if even 1% of people of earn that their living from photography use a Leica of any sort. Also I'd say that less than 1% of Leica owners make their living from photography. Leica's are consumer cameras - but that's not to say that the pictures that are taken on them are any lesser than professional photographers.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Perhaps this is true if you're talking about Leica M-Mount cameras. I'd be quite surprised, though, if a fair proportion of Leica S camera gear wasn't being used professionally, as with (I'd guess) other digital medium-format equipment. That may be a different segment of the market but it does exist.
...Mike
furbs
Well-known
This. I have seen too many amazing shots from X100s and GRs to believe they can't be used professionally. Years ago I used APS-C digital SLRs and kit zooms for professional jobs and I have a friend who currently does professional portraiture with a Lumix point-and-shoot.
Digital isn't so much about the quality as the turnaround time, and you get that with even the most bottom-rung digicams. Why not use a cheap digital for work and the M6 for your fun/serious/craft shots?
thejameskendall
Established
Fair point, we were talking about digital Ms though - that's what I meant.
if the OP can't afford a M9, he certainly can't afford a Leica S!