It's not all in his head...
It's not all in his head...
Absolutely, Requin: it's the photography and the vision that's important, not whether one used film or digital. I'm sort of amazed at the tendency to proselytize in this thread: telling the OP that he can find time for dealing with film when he has said there there isn't, and so on ad nauseum — suggesting it's all in his head doesn't help much.
I tried to go back to film partially last December when I made the first impulse buy of a camera for the first time: I was in Paris and saw a beautiful Hasselblad 903-SWC — mint, black, beautiful: as much as I've always like my M6, the SWC is fantastic; looking through the viewfinder you see the aperture, shutter speed, focusing scale and spirit level at the same time, a beautiful design and fantastic build quality.
My intention was to have the film develop and printed (in Bangkok) by the best custom darkroom print, but, tragically, he died in a car crash and the other really good printer took off for Laos. I shoot a few rolls, had them developed and then scanned on an old Imacon Flextight Precison 3 on which it takes about 16-18min for each frame at full resolution. Then, in January, I started traveling very frequently (Manila, Paris, London, New York, Toronto. Brisbane, Beijing, Guangzhou — some of these repeated a few times). This meant that, when I was in Bangkok I didn't have time to deal with film — not to speak that the really good custom printers, who had also been affordable, were gone — which would have meant, had the custom printers still been around, driving about 45min each through heavy traffic for a distance of about 2 miles. So now, I'll be taking back the SWC to Paris to sell on consignment at the sotre where I bought it (Le Moyen Format), having failed to sell it in Bangkok. Please don't tell me that it's all in my head.
With digital I can post-process the pictures when I travel since there is always a good amount of dead time on a business trip. If I were the OP, I would start digital by getting either an X100, as Keith suggests, or a Ricoh GXR with the two APS-C modules (28 and 50 mm EFOV), depending on what focal length he wants to shoot.
BTW, an M9 is not necessarily a panacea. I had an M8.2 that I never took to, selling it after I got the M9. The M9 was a disaster, coming from the store with a cracked sensor, which Leica Service in Solms felt with promptly; but some three weeks after I got the camera it developed an intermittent problem, occasionally putting down a lighter coloured rectangle in the frame. apparently a processor fault. It was three months before I got the camera back from Solms — and in the process Solms tried to convince me that they should send the camera back to me as is because they couldn't replicate the problem, rather than sending me a new camera as I had requested and as they initially had agreed — I wanted a new camera because I was afraid that the processor fault stemmed from something Leica Service did when they replaced the sensor on the first round. Luckily, when I got the camera back, M9s were still in short supply and I was able to sell it to someone for US$200 less than I had paid — and I had spent another US$200 in handling costs sending the camera twice to Solms. In case you're wondering the buyer was informed of the problems the camera had had. There were a couple of more reasons that I sold the M9, including an overall electronic sluggishness.
I still have seven M-lenses and may big either the GXR M-Mount or the NEX-7, depending on which the manual focus system is less obtrusive: it is somewhat so on the GXR M-Mount. (I have the GXR 28mm and 50mm EFOV camera units). Or I may wait until there is a full frame NEX-7 type of camera, because I would prefer to use my M-lenses at the focal length for which they were designed.
The digital camera that I really like is the GRD3, which I also use now.
—Mitch/Bangkok
Heading for the Shade