PKR
Veteran
Good Call!
For pros x2,…Realistically – given the reliability issues and repair delays x3 or x 4.! SO pros are looking at $18,000 minimum or without a Fuji back up - given months of repair delays - $27,000 or maybe $36,000 .. and add the cost of lenses. What a F***ing Joke!
Many of us had as many as 6 - M6 cameras with 2 in the shop at any given time. The film M was more reliable than the digital M. So if the same number of bodies are required - $ 54,000 + lenses. Yeah, right. Thank Fuji for Fuji.
flash
Member
It sounds like they built the M240 just for you, Gordon.
It's not far off. My accountant says i can have one at the end of the year. The main thing for me is the quieter shutter. The rest is gravy. I'll use it but I don't need it. I'm quite used to/happy with the DR/resolution/noise of the M9. I'm at a point of sufficiency in that area. (I was there with the 5Dmk1). I think it will increase the percentage of my work shot on the Leicas. That's a good thing for me.
I will miss the full time frame lines, the frameline lever (yep. I use it) and the better exposure compensation behaviour. (yep. i use that too when required).
Funny thing is I'll still probably need an AF system for some things. But often when I think the M9 may not be suitable it proves me wrong. I resisted shooting any architecture or real-estate with the M9 because I thought the better DR of my AF cameras would be better. Until I had an issue with my wide zoom and was "forced" to compromise with the lowly CV 12mm 5.6 and 21mm f1.8. After I delivered those shots the agent called and asked that I change permanently to those lenses. Win for the M9 and its crappy sensor.
There's one point I didn't mention. price. Yes Leicas are very expensive. But. 1) They're not that much more than the top Canon (1Dx) or Nikon (D4). My last "pro" Canon was the 1Dsmk3. That cost me more than my M9, and 2) I get a nice tax deduction for my gear over a few years and I get to claim any taxes (GST in Oz) immediately. It's simply not costing me as much per shot as someone who can't claim their gear as an expense. I do carefully consider expenditure. But my accountant is more likely to tell me to buy something at the end of the financial year so I don't get pushed into another tax bracket.
Gordon
batey_1020
Well-known
I shoot leica because i was given one. Could never afford one in the next 5 years and that never bothered me. I just enjoy taking photos and there are many man many cameras that are a joy to use.
Take photos with what you have rather then dreaming about what you could have. By the time you get the camera you want you will be a better photographer.
Take photos with what you have rather then dreaming about what you could have. By the time you get the camera you want you will be a better photographer.
flash
Member
Do you really think that a full time working photographer that shoots Canon, Nikon or Sony has less than 20K invested in gear? Leica is more expensive (mainly in lenses though) but not by as much as you might think if you consider ALL the gear a full time pro photographer uses. We all still buy tripods, lights, stands, computers, filters, vehicles, insurance etc, etc, etc.... It's an illusion that you can survive in the long run with a 6D and three pro zooms. The extra cost of the lenses from Leica is not that great in the scheme of things. A D4 isn't that much different to an M9. Yes there are exceptions. But most full timers who have survived and work for themselves have an arsenal of stuff and it's a lot more than just camera bodies.
When I shot film I had 6 bodies. 4x35mm and 2x6x6. Now I have 4 in total that I work with.
When I shot Canon I was a CPS member. I also knew people within Canon. In 20 years, not once did I get access to a like body, if I needed a repair. "Sorry Gordon, we've booked all the loan stock out for the formula One this weekend. We have a 40D you could borrow".
Both my M9's have required warranty service. But not at the same time, thankfully. Sure it could happen. But I have an alternative and contingencies in place, just in case. I need to worry about what happens if someone steals a bag full of gear on Friday when I have a Saturday wedding. Of course we have insurance. But we still need to be prepared. that's what a pro does.
$50K of gear would be conservative, regardless of brand. A medium format digital shooter spends that on a single back. My plumber has more than $50K tied up in tools to do the job. My inventory is probably close to double that. And maybe 40% is in cameras and lenses. Of my total equipment I have spent maybe 7-10% more in total because I use Leica cameras. I'd love to have 10K in gear in total. But I'd be way less profitable and far less prepared.
Also I don't drop $8K on a new camera. I move an older body on for 4K. One that's shot over a hundred thousand frames. Plus I claim the taxes and amortise the cost of the camera over a 3 year period.
Gordon
Jubb Jubb
Well-known
Curious as to why you would need two bodies?
flash
Member
Also I just want to say thanks for the kind responses to my post. This forum needs a thankyou button.
Gordon
Gordon
hepcat
Former PH, USN
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!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Thanks for an excellent post.
First highlight: There's plenty more as well, though, such as gratuitous attacks on the poor for having the temerity to be poor, and, as you note, even among those who might actually be expected to know what they're talking about, "Unfortunately many think that their gear will work for everyone and that's just not the case."
Second highlight: The counter-argument is summed up as "But what if I want to shoot sports from 100 yards away?" In that case, buy kit that allows you to shoot sports from 100 yards away. If you don't want to shoot that sort of thing for money, or to pick out political leaders at party conferences, maybe you don't need a 300mm f/2.8. Far too many wanabee professionals stick with "What if" scenarios that are utterly irrelevant to the way they're likely to make a living: cf your Prakica story.
Third highlight: seconded without reservation. You and I are closer in kit than many on this forum, but even then, the way we use that kit is very different. Then again, it is a part of the way we earn our living...
Cheers,
R.
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
PURRfectly put ....couldn't Agree more !
hepcat
Former PH, USN
My pleasure. I hope that the OP hasn't abandoned the thread.
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
ooops Icebear/Klaus
i was responding to your funny thought
deleted it to repost differently
and now its Gone
APOLOGIES....
meant to say....
No, I'm a pug-aholic...have 2
i was responding to your funny thought
deleted it to repost differently
and now its Gone
APOLOGIES....
meant to say....
No, I'm a pug-aholic...have 2
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I've been shooting M bodies for only eight years or so. I've had a range of them both digital and film. I've had to send in an M5 and several M7 bodies for work. I've had to send in two digital bodies. Not really any difference in reliability. The M8 had the dead pixel line thing, and an M9 had a problem with the flash which ended up being the batteries being old. I shot Nikon for many years and had to have them fixed from time to time too.
And don;t even get me started on Hasselblad repair.
Fraser
Well-known
I've had 11 Canon DSLR only repairs have been user error, two digital Ms both had warranty repairs for sensor faults. My M9 has just come back from Leica it was away for a month to have the sensor remaped, I remaped the sensor in one of my Canons myself it took 30 seconds!
Dunn
Well-known
Yeah, I was almost gone for good. I saw where this thread was going and didn't really want anything to do with it anymore. It pretty much bummed me out and made me want to never post on rff again.
But, your post helped bring it back. I appreciate your advice coming from actual experience and not being a dick about it.
I know I have a long way to go, but I feel like I can make it. I still trying to figure out exactly where I fit in. And I'm going to keep shooting no matter what camera I have.
Dunn
Well-known
I almost did. I sure didn't read all ten pages of it though. I can't believe you read through all that crap.
Thank you very much for your in depth response. I know it's a tough world out there, but I've got to try, right? And I may never own a digital Leica, but I think it would fit me well.
Right now I'm just trying to get a foot in the door. I just applied for the Missouri Photo Workshop so I'm crossing my fingers for that.
We'll see what happens. Thanks for helping me keep my faith in rff.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
Thanks for checking in. There's a LOT of good info and well-informed folks who post on RFF. Sometimes you need to filter out the noise to see the real image tho.
Absolutely you need to give it a try. Just be realistic in your goals, and you won't be disappointed. Do your homework. Know what's out there. Always have a backup plan... both for the job you're shooting, and for life. You can't make money from shooting if you have to sell your gear to eat.
Believe in yourself. Prepare your skills, both photographic and business, to be ready to take advantage of opportunities when they come up. Never pass on an opportunity when it presents itself. It may not pan out the way you expect, but I can tell you now with the perspective of age that trying something and failing is a much better experience than looking back and saying "if only I'd done... when the opportunity was presented."
And yes, above all, keep shooting.
I'd wish you good luck again, but I think you'll be making your own luck as you go.