M8: To buy or not to buy

[Peter Klein]

Reality check.

I can get a 36-exposure roll of C-41 (color or BW400CN) developed, printed AND scanned to about a 6 MP file, all for $10.00 at Costco. In one hour. I can get a roll of traditional B&W developed and scanned to the same resolution for $15 at a local B&W specialty lab. That takes one or two days.

Let's add five bucks (ballpark) for each roll of film itself. Now, how many rolls of film would it take for me to equal the $4800 price tag of an M8?

C41: 4800 / 15 = 320 rolls
Silver BW: 4800 / 20 = 240 rolls

Now, let's say I shoot a roll per week, with two weeks off. That's 50 rolls of film in a year. It would take about six and a half years of C41 shooting, or just under 5 years of silver B&W shooting, to have spent the equivalent of an M8 body.

I rarely shoot more than half the above. So double the length of time for my film shooting to "pay" for an M8. That's a lot of film shooting.

So the M8 makes no economic sense for me. Your mileage may vary.

But I still want one. Big time. More on that in the next post.

--Peter

 

[Peter Klein]

So much for The Dismal Science. Now, here's why I want an M8 anyway:

1. I hate scanning. It eats time. Time is precious, and I don't have a lot of it. Even if I get a 6 megapixel scan from the film lab, I need to rescan my best shots myself at 4000 dpi if I want the very best quality. Sometimes I'm lazy and I don't.

2. If I shoot only five or ten pictures in a week, I won't have to wait until I finish the roll to see them.

3. I'll get more immediate feedback about my technique, and how my lenses work at various distances and apertures.

4. I have vaguely to intensely disliked every digital camera I've tried or owned. I want to photograph, not program a computer. I don't care much for SLRs unless I'm shooting photos that really need the SLR view. In other words, macro and telephoto. For everything else, I prefer RF, and I prefer Leica. The M8 is the camera I already love, with digital guts.

5. Digital available light has some real possibilities. Many photogs have noted more low-light shadow detail in ISO 400 and above digital shots than in their film equivalents. Yes there is noise, too. I'm waiting to see how the M8 does, and I suspect it will do well. C*non will surpass it on empirical noise tests, and I suspect the M8 will take just as good or better pictures overall. Jury's still out on this one.

6. Ten megapixels may be the sweet spot where the details availalble on a digital picture, printed 8x10 and bigger, approach good color print film. I'm not talking about whether you prefer the "look" or not. I'm talking about whether the leaves on that tree in the background look like real leaves or sponge blobs when you look closely. I'm talking about whether the picture looks artificially sharpened or truly sharp, because there are enough pixels for the edges to look real.

7. For me, the crop factor is a non-issue. And I rarely shoot wider than 35mm. I have a mix of Leica and CV lenses from 21mm to 90mm. I'll live. And like it.

8. Just because.

Oh, my aching wallet. . . :bang: I'm going to be watching tests and reviews, and gauging my emotions and finances very carefully for a while.

--Peter

 

[peter_n]

Peter the "look" as you put it is everything to me. I love the way prints made from film look and so far at least I haven't seen a print from a digital camera that compares. Although I am highly time-challenged myself I think the time spent on film workflow is truly worth it because the end result is so beautiful. That is justification enough over any economic or technical rationale that may be advanced for the M8 or any other digital camera. Just my personal opinion.

 

[bmicklea]

I'm tempted as well, but I'm going to be getting into developing my own B&W negs in the next couple of months. It'll take more time (which I have increasingly little of) but I suspect that it will also clarify what I love about film. The tactility.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

Just to break the "Peter" chain, here comes a "Francisco."

To answer Peter's original question: Not to buy. At least, not in my case. Peter K already argued his case and his heady conclusion left me thinking about it... But it won't sway me: I simply don't want to embark in another learning experience. First, film SLRs, then rangefinders, now I'm into film developing... No way I'm going to buy a digital camera with all that D-76 sitting in my closet, waiting to be turned into stock solution (probably this weekend).

But then, I won't say no to play with one in a store... 🙂

 

[lifevicarious]

One thing I wanted to point out was the cost of shooting film and only shooting ~25 rolls of film a year. Do you only shoot 25 rolls of film a year due to the cost? The time to process? Not wanting to wait? A combination of all three? Or do you only shoot 25 rolls of film because you just don't want to take that many pictures?

With digital, you will shoot more. And I dare to say, you will improve because of it. The feedback you get is awesome. And you will shoot more and expirment more as, for all intensive purposes, exposures are free. Snap away. I have definitely not taken a picture on film because it felt like a 'waste of film and money'. Not so with digital.

When I first got into photography 4 years ago I greatly debated going film or digital. I went digital and now have a 5D (as well as a R3A for the film side). But had I started with film, I would never shoot as much as I do now. It really changes things. I guarantee you that if you got the M8, you would shoot much more then 900 pictures a year. I'd venture to guess you'd shoot that a month.

 

[furcafe]

Exactly. Each of our mileages will vary, including the mileage we get out of the convenience/time factors that you mentioned in your 2nd post (how I do wish somebody would make a high-speed, multi-format, film scanner!).

By my own conservative estimate (based on the # of "keepers" I posted to flickr), I shot @ least 200 rolls of film (mixed C41, E6, & B&W, mostly 35mm, but also 120) last year, which puts me on the edge using your calculations (costs are roughly similar here in the Washington, DC area). And since I've found myself shooting more each year as my photography interests & skills continue to increase (the interest more than the skills sad to say), that motivated me to get an R-D1 a few months ago. If the M8 were to actually ship in sufficient numbers in the coming months (not happening from what I understand), I probably would have held out & @ least put my order in, but now that I have the R-D1 I can certainly wait. I'm particularly interested to hear what the M8's ISO 2500 performance will turn to be (if it approaches the Canon full-frame sensors, I may have to take out a loan! 😛 ).

Reality check.

. . .

So the M8 makes no economic sense for me. Your mileage may vary.

But I still want one. Big time. More on that in the next post.

--Peter

 

[scjohn]

To buy or not to buy? Just another post to help amuse me while I have to wait to buy! I appreciate the whole "economically better off to just stick with film" argument. Before joining the PGA tour Lee Travino earned his living as a caddie betting club champs that he could beat them even if he used a beer bottle as a putter. Great photographers can make a brownie camera work. I don't need it I want it. People buy Hybrid cars to save on gas but their gas savings would never approach what they would save by buying a 10 mpg chevy for $2000. As a hobbie photogrpher I can't possibly justify my price per image. But its like the visa commercial: price of this X, price of that Y, price of looking at an image I am proud of priceless. I expect the M8 will not be as user friendly as the RD-1. I think the Rd-1 controls I use and need to capture images are better than the controls on the M8. I think the M8 is too "playback friendly" at the expense of being capture-friendly while the RD-1 relegates playback to where I think it should be relegated. But I am convinced the images will spectacular. If I get M7 color with the M8, I will pay $5000 with a smile. I will even endure loathsome LCD menus and a user-hostile lack of dedicated buttons. Just one more price I will pay.

 

[lifevicarious]

What controls

What controls

I will even endure loathsome LCD menus and a user-hostile lack of dedicated buttons. Just one more price I will pay.

What controls are that buried? Iso changes are a couple of clicks (I had my hands on one last night, a couple of clicks). Far easier then waiting for a roll of film to finish to shoot a different ISO. All of the controls you have with the M7, you have with the M8. Aside from ISO, I'm not sure what you would really change. Do all the processing later, just like you would with film.

 

[John Camp]

Your original cost analysis only works if you're using a pinhole camera that you made yourself out of an empty Wheaties box. if you're going to count the cost of the M8, you should also count the cost of the M3 or M7 that you're using now...the sensor alone equals the cost of the film...

But the real value of digital comes not in monetary savings on film; it comes in the fact that you shoot so much more. Film has always been a hassle for me (I had a darkroom for years), and though I liked photography, I doubt that I shot more than a roll a week, and of course, most of those shots were a waste. Now, I put in a memory card, and it might be in there for two weeks or more, because I chimp as I go...and probably delete 2/3 or even 3/4 of the shots within a few minutes of shooting them. I'm now carrying a camera in the car almost every day, because I'm always looking for something to shoot, and I no longer have to deal with unknown costs and low prospects of success. The other day, I was shooting a scene in Stillwater, Mn., along the St. Croix river, and was trying to get a bunch of riverboats with their American flags straight out in the breeze, and the flags were whippng around and the boats were turning, etc. I probably took thirty shots before everything was the way I wanted it. That would have been a roll of film, and I wouldn't have known for a while if anything was right. I've got two shots now, and they're both decent, well-exposed, and so on. And I knew when I got them on the spot.

I still shoot film, but not as often anymore.

JC

 

[halabar]

The question that has not been asked is... what are you doing with your images? Each of us will have a slightly differrent answer. Are you scanning film at home?.. sending to a lab?.. selling stock?.. shooting weddings?.. doing traditional printing at home?..

Whatever your answer is will effect whether ANY digital is better for you than a film process.

There is no one perfect answer.

For the film users though... eventually your film choices will be limited. Thank God Ilford didn't go under yet.

 

[AndyPiper]

How much is TIME worth?

Scanning. Correcting scans to the quality level of a RAW file. Driving to the lab and back. Running film oneself.

I won't count for silver printing time because it isn't that much different from Photoshop time - and it's creative FUN!

But my print darkroom was donated to the local school for the arts when we moved 10 years ago. I do mostly color anyway, where the advantages of silver-based prints are miniscule if not non-existent.

Calculate the HOURS taken forever out of your life for non-creative 'overhead', and then pay yourself something reasonable for that drudgery.

When I did that, the time costs were actually higher than the film/processing costs - and the M8 pays for itself in a year.

But it's certainly a calculation everyone must make for themselves.

 

[sgy1962]

So much for The Dismal Science. Now, here's why I want an M8 anyway:

1. I hate scanning. It eats time. Time is precious, and I don't have a lot of it. Even if I get a 6 megapixel scan from the film lab, I need to rescan my best shots myself at 4000 dpi if I want the very best quality. Sometimes I'm lazy and I don't.

2. If I shoot only five or ten pictures in a week, I won't have to wait until I finish the roll to see them.

3. I'll get more immediate feedback about my technique, and how my lenses work at various distances and apertures.

4. I have vaguely to intensely disliked every digital camera I've tried or owned. I want to photograph, not program a computer. I don't care much for SLRs unless I'm shooting photos that really need the SLR view. In other words, macro and telephoto. For everything else, I prefer RF, and I prefer Leica. The M8 is the camera I already love, with digital guts.

5. Digital available light has some real possibilities. Many photogs have noted more low-light shadow detail in ISO 400 and above digital shots than in their film equivalents. Yes there is noise, too. I'm waiting to see how the M8 does, and I suspect it will do well. C*non will surpass it on empirical noise tests, and I suspect the M8 will take just as good or better pictures overall. Jury's still out on this one.

6. Ten megapixels may be the sweet spot where the details availalble on a digital picture, printed 8x10 and bigger, approach good color print film. I'm not talking about whether you prefer the "look" or not. I'm talking about whether the leaves on that tree in the background look like real leaves or sponge blobs when you look closely. I'm talking about whether the picture looks artificially sharpened or truly sharp, because there are enough pixels for the edges to look real.

7. For me, the crop factor is a non-issue. And I rarely shoot wider than 35mm. I have a mix of Leica and CV lenses from 21mm to 90mm. I'll live. And like it.

8. Just because.

Oh, my aching wallet. . . :bang: I'm going to be watching tests and reviews, and gauging my emotions and finances very carefully for a while.

--Peter

Let's not forget it gives you a new toy.

The truth is that there is probably very little reason for the anateur to go digital. If you want it, then get it. You don't need to justify the purchase. And if you feel that it is too expensive, then sell your film stuff to help finance the acquisition.

For me, it may be in the cards someday (my lab just lost two rolls of my film!), but not today. Film and good processing is still plenty avaialble. It suits my needs. And I just don't have a good track record with electronics. That's one of the reasons I went to the Leica M.

I would at least like to hear some reviews and the user reports of the camera. I feel that this camera will be back ordered for some time now, so none of us have to make a quick decision.

 

[Vangoghs_Ear]

Has anyone found any links with image samples from the M8?

 

[Peter Klein]

Has anyone found any links with image samples from the M8?

With one exception I haven't seen any. [EDIT: The exception was apparently unauthorized and the images were quickly removed from the Web. Given that, I have removed any comments about these images from this post.]

The people who tried the camera have been asked not to post pictures, because the firmware is not final yet. This is standard practice with all new digital cameras. Otherwise, some pixel peeper will find a flaw that won't be in the final version. He will proceed to post contrast-increased 100% crops and loudly trumpet that the camera is a piece of garbage. The rumor will fly over the Internet at light speed. It's happened.

Check out Henning Wulff's and Tom A.'s comments in other threads. They have good things to say about the image quality, comparing it favorably with high-end DSLRs from those other companies.

We will be seeing images with the production firmware soon enough, maybe as soon as Photokina or the LHSA meeting and Leica Academy in a couple of weeks. At worst, in a couple of months.

--Peter

 

[Ben Z]

The economics of film/development savings work for me, I can pay back the entire cost of an M8 in about 2 1/2 years (and I'm just an amateur, shooting around 10 rolls a month average). The economics dont work for me getting two of them though, and that will be an adjustment. I'm used to shooting with 2 bodies. Though admittedly it's mainly for having 2 types of film, not because I need a different lens at the ready instantly, and digital allows me to switch ISO and even to b&w on the same camera. Also there's backup in case of a problem while I'm travelling far from home. I suspect I will either be bringing an M6 and a dozen rolls of color print film for that, or else rely on my wife's Canon S80 for backup, since it has a 28-100 lens and takes SD cards.

If there's an M9 in a couple of years, by then my M8 will be "free" and I'll keep it as a backup. If there is not an M9, and as people predict the M8 will be "obsolete" and "worthless" in a couple years, I'll pick a used one up for nothing. Either way it works for me.

 

[Alm3000]

To buy, buy, buy: Not only will i shoot more due to no film usage but also the fact that this camera is small with small lenses, i can fit my m6 with 3 lenses in a very small shoulder bag. You want to go for a walk or to a restaurant, or pretty much anywhere. Take the little guy along and shoot 5 pictures or 500 pictures. Just buy an extra battery.

 

[hth]

Can you explain your math? I shoot about 50 rolls per year and to cover the cost for an M8 with film and development, I would need 10-18 years depending on how much color vs B&W I do.

I would love to be able to prove that I could count an M8 off in 2.5 years, then I would buy one!

/Håkan

The economics of film/development savings work for me, I can pay back the entire cost of an M8 in about 2 1/2 years (and I'm just an amateur, shooting around 10 rolls a month average).

 

[Ben Z]

Can you explain your math? I shoot about 50 rolls per year and to cover the cost for an M8 with film and development, I would need 10-18 years depending on how much color vs B&W I do.

I would love to be able to prove that I could count an M8 off in 2.5 years, then I would buy one!

/Håkan

Glad to. As I said, I shoot an average of 10 rolls per month. 120 rolls per year. $15/roll for Provia and E6 developing. $1800/year X 2.5 years = $4500 (the M8 is supposedly going to cost $4750). And that math makes the far-fetched assumption that the M8 will have little or no residual value in 2.5 years. Canon 10D are still selling for 20-25% of original cost.

Even your 50 rolls/year, at $15/roll total, equates to $750 year. Divided into $4750 is 6 years 4 months.

The whole "obsolete" thing doesn't add up to me. If digital is advancing in a way that several years from now image quality is significantly better, how can anyone buy any digital camera? For that matter how did anyone shoot with film in 1986 when manufacturers were diligently working to make better, sharper, less-grainy film?

 

[Nachkebia]

Ben Z : add to that memorry card`s and horse power PC 🙂