RedLion
Come to the Faire
Well, the deal for the chrome 0.72 MP fell through and now I'm reconsidering my kit realignment. I currently have an M8.2 and having held the MP I really think I could enjoy using one a lot, although having looked through the viewfinder with my glasses on, I think the 0.58 will better serve me as my fav focal length is 35mm.
I need to decide: Keep my M8.2 and get a 0.58 MP .. OR .. sell the M8.2 and get an M9.
Factors I'm considering:
Type of shooting: Urban Flaneur: strolling downtown and just taking street snaps for myself. Not high volume stuff.
Film workflow: I don't mind shooting film (I have several medium format film cams) or paying Costco $2 for 1hr C-41 development. But their 2000x3000 scans (while fast and $3 cheap) don't have much in the way of dynamic range to them... the shadows are typically all blocked out and turn to mud if I try to bring out the shadows in post... SO I will need to scan it myself... Im thinking maybe the Epson 750 I can do a roll of film in batch mode? How much of a pain is it to scan a roll of 36 exposures? Will it give me some decent dynamic range? I do like to manipulate my photos in post (Lightroom) so I need a decent file to start with.
On the other hand, going all digital with an M9 would be the same workflow as I'm using with my M8.2.
Shooting experience: As much as I like my M8.2, it's not the same experience as shooting a film M. I like the experience better with a film M (I've tried an M6 classic). I don't think the M9 would be any better of an experience than my M8.2 - just larger files with a wider field of view for a given lens. For some reason, I can just more easily imagine myself taking a relaxing stroll in the city with a film M, than with a $7000 digital camera.
OK. Which would you choose and why?
Joe
I need to decide: Keep my M8.2 and get a 0.58 MP .. OR .. sell the M8.2 and get an M9.
Factors I'm considering:
Type of shooting: Urban Flaneur: strolling downtown and just taking street snaps for myself. Not high volume stuff.
Film workflow: I don't mind shooting film (I have several medium format film cams) or paying Costco $2 for 1hr C-41 development. But their 2000x3000 scans (while fast and $3 cheap) don't have much in the way of dynamic range to them... the shadows are typically all blocked out and turn to mud if I try to bring out the shadows in post... SO I will need to scan it myself... Im thinking maybe the Epson 750 I can do a roll of film in batch mode? How much of a pain is it to scan a roll of 36 exposures? Will it give me some decent dynamic range? I do like to manipulate my photos in post (Lightroom) so I need a decent file to start with.
On the other hand, going all digital with an M9 would be the same workflow as I'm using with my M8.2.
Shooting experience: As much as I like my M8.2, it's not the same experience as shooting a film M. I like the experience better with a film M (I've tried an M6 classic). I don't think the M9 would be any better of an experience than my M8.2 - just larger files with a wider field of view for a given lens. For some reason, I can just more easily imagine myself taking a relaxing stroll in the city with a film M, than with a $7000 digital camera.
OK. Which would you choose and why?
Joe
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
If it's just hobby photography with no deadline, I'd go with film.
In fact, I'd sell the M8.2 and get a user M film body + a significant amount of cash to put towards a trip somewhere to use that camera.
Just my opinion though.
If I didn't have any deadlines or I could use film for deadline work, I'd shoot with my M4 and probably an M2. I'd be happy as a clam with 125-PX and Tri-X if it came down to it. I think about selling myM8 and M9 all the time and getting another film body then taking a long trip. As it stands, I feel I need the digitals for the work I do and will be doing in the future.
It all depends upon what you want out of your photography. If you don't really feel like the M8.2 could replace a film M then an M9 isn't for you since they are so similar in operation that you don't really notice the change between the two.
Phil Forrest
In fact, I'd sell the M8.2 and get a user M film body + a significant amount of cash to put towards a trip somewhere to use that camera.
Just my opinion though.
If I didn't have any deadlines or I could use film for deadline work, I'd shoot with my M4 and probably an M2. I'd be happy as a clam with 125-PX and Tri-X if it came down to it. I think about selling myM8 and M9 all the time and getting another film body then taking a long trip. As it stands, I feel I need the digitals for the work I do and will be doing in the future.
It all depends upon what you want out of your photography. If you don't really feel like the M8.2 could replace a film M then an M9 isn't for you since they are so similar in operation that you don't really notice the change between the two.
Phil Forrest
umcelinho
Marcelo
you kind of answered your question 
"For some reason, I can just more easily imagine myself taking a relaxing stroll in the city with a film M, than with a $7000 digital camera."
go for the .58 MP and try to find a lab that will give you better scans. it won't be as cheap as costco, but it will spare you the hassle of scanning and editing colour negatives - which can be really frustrating. I used to scan my own negs, but labs here would be so careless with the negatives that I would be often find myself scanning scratched, dirty, dusty negs and going mad cleaning them and then getting the right tones... maybe i didnt find a proper workflow, i dont know. but i've decided to sell my scanner (a plustek 7500i) and now i have my rolls developed and scanned (3000x2000) for less than $10.
Strolling with a $7000 digital camera is not so far from doing so with a $5000 film camera, but how you feel is what really matters. I personally do find myself more comfortable with my beaten M4 than when I was with a mint M6, and the difference in price isn't much. Still, it impacts my shooting. So I kinda get what you're saying, i guess.
.58 viewfinder will really make a difference for 35mm, I've been taking a hexar rf everyday to work, it has a .60 vf and it's much more pleasant to look through it than the .72 vf of the m4, framelines wise. i think of getting an M9 because of the ease in workflow and mostly because 35mm is my fav focal length, and to get that in the R-D1 i need to take a 21/2.8, which is neither fast nor compact as I like... but $7000 is quite a punch in the pockets!
"For some reason, I can just more easily imagine myself taking a relaxing stroll in the city with a film M, than with a $7000 digital camera."
go for the .58 MP and try to find a lab that will give you better scans. it won't be as cheap as costco, but it will spare you the hassle of scanning and editing colour negatives - which can be really frustrating. I used to scan my own negs, but labs here would be so careless with the negatives that I would be often find myself scanning scratched, dirty, dusty negs and going mad cleaning them and then getting the right tones... maybe i didnt find a proper workflow, i dont know. but i've decided to sell my scanner (a plustek 7500i) and now i have my rolls developed and scanned (3000x2000) for less than $10.
Strolling with a $7000 digital camera is not so far from doing so with a $5000 film camera, but how you feel is what really matters. I personally do find myself more comfortable with my beaten M4 than when I was with a mint M6, and the difference in price isn't much. Still, it impacts my shooting. So I kinda get what you're saying, i guess.
.58 viewfinder will really make a difference for 35mm, I've been taking a hexar rf everyday to work, it has a .60 vf and it's much more pleasant to look through it than the .72 vf of the m4, framelines wise. i think of getting an M9 because of the ease in workflow and mostly because 35mm is my fav focal length, and to get that in the R-D1 i need to take a 21/2.8, which is neither fast nor compact as I like... but $7000 is quite a punch in the pockets!
Last edited:
gavinlg
Veteran
To me, it would depend entirely on how you like scanning and also what kind of scanner you're willing to get. The epson flatbeds aren't great for 35mm. A canon or nikon dslr from like 2002 gives better IQ than a leica with an epson flatbed scanner. If you're willing to splash out for a nikon coolscan 9000 or the 35mm only one (forgot the name), or at minimum a plustek 7600, then 35mm is viable. As a note, the m9 will still give you technically better photos IMO.
I'd go the m9.
I'd go the m9.
maddoc
... likes film again.
I agree.
Absolutely no. My "2002 DSLR" was a Nikon D1x and Leica-exposed films scanned with my Epson V700 (after carefully adjusting the height of the film carrier and making sure that the film is 100% flat) were way ahead the DSLR files regarding quality.
A decent 35mm film-scanner is worth some money but worth that much money the decent Coolscans 4000ED / 5000ED now cost, I am not sure...
gavinlg
Veteran
Absolutely no. My "2002 DSLR" was a Nikon D1x and Leica-exposed films scanned with my Epson V700 (after carefully adjusting the height of the film carrier and making sure that the film is 100% flat) were way ahead the DSLR files regarding quality.
A decent 35mm film-scanner is worth some money but worth that much money the decent Coolscans 4000ED / 5000ED now cost, I am not sure...
mmm I had an original 1d for a while (the 4mp one) and it was just as good as the later model 1d's, albeit with a smaller 4mp output. I'd put it against scans from my v600 anyday for technical quality (with smallish prints), though I'm sure the v700 would be slightly better again then the v600. I may have over-exadurated a little with the 2002 thing, though I'd still stick by my statement with an epson flatbed scanned 35mm neg vs say... a d200 or canon 30d...
efirmage
Established
I don't really have a choice besides film at this point, and if I had the means I would absolutely get an M9.
BUT
All of the downsides of film have an upside. Scanning can be a royal pain, but it also forces you to spend a lot of time with each image, and you're painfully aware of every defect in your photo. But you also get to revel in success when you get it right. I hate spending time editing my photos, so I make sure that I get it as close as possible in the field. I usually have to spend more time editing my digital shots than my film shots.
Low and restricted ISO's can be difficult to work with, but they also help you pre-conceive what you are able to shoot best at that moment. Choosing beforehand whether you are going to shoot B&W or color does the same thing.
I see film as the equivalent to a fixed lens. It is definitely more work, more limiting and you might not get as many good shots, but chances are you will get more great shots. Plus the magic of film is undeniable.
*edit* all that goes out the window if you can't get a good scan however. If you're shooting Leica anything you're paying a lot for an relatively small difference in quality over much cheaper competitors. Don't waste it on cheap scans.
Like I said, if I could afford an M9 I'd certainly get one, but it would be an addition to rather than a replacement for my M6.
BUT
All of the downsides of film have an upside. Scanning can be a royal pain, but it also forces you to spend a lot of time with each image, and you're painfully aware of every defect in your photo. But you also get to revel in success when you get it right. I hate spending time editing my photos, so I make sure that I get it as close as possible in the field. I usually have to spend more time editing my digital shots than my film shots.
Low and restricted ISO's can be difficult to work with, but they also help you pre-conceive what you are able to shoot best at that moment. Choosing beforehand whether you are going to shoot B&W or color does the same thing.
I see film as the equivalent to a fixed lens. It is definitely more work, more limiting and you might not get as many good shots, but chances are you will get more great shots. Plus the magic of film is undeniable.
*edit* all that goes out the window if you can't get a good scan however. If you're shooting Leica anything you're paying a lot for an relatively small difference in quality over much cheaper competitors. Don't waste it on cheap scans.
Like I said, if I could afford an M9 I'd certainly get one, but it would be an addition to rather than a replacement for my M6.
alexnotalex
Well-known
Sell the digital kit, an buy film gear, and embrace happiness.
You can go back to digital in a year or two, prices will fall and there are more digital options on the way. Put $1000 in an envelope to start your "used M9" fund.
In the meantime, pay more for better scans, enjoy shooting film, and donate $10 to charity each roll you get processed.
above all, enjoy it
Alex
You can go back to digital in a year or two, prices will fall and there are more digital options on the way. Put $1000 in an envelope to start your "used M9" fund.
In the meantime, pay more for better scans, enjoy shooting film, and donate $10 to charity each roll you get processed.
above all, enjoy it
Alex
250swb
Well-known
Presumably you have no clear idea of where you want your photography to go, and if you have to ask what gear to buy I'd say don't do anything. Make your mind up first where the equipment you have is letting you down and plan to buy new stuff to compensate.
You can see what has happened in the posts you have already received in kicking off yet another pointless film vs digital debate, playing around with YOUR money and how to spend it.
So, if you like urban photography make a list of what you would like to be able to do that you can't now. It may be that you would like to re-discover your lenses on a full frame body and get the most out of them but keep the workflow you have. It could be that you want to experiment with film and scanners and go for a different workflow and/or look. Whatever the questions you ask yourself only start to look for a new camera when you have the basic answers. Of course you may just have GAS, in which case go out and try something completely new (but cheaper) like one of the EVIL systems, or a Rollieflex. It will either convert you or make you appreciate what you already have.
Steve
Mark T
Established
Get the MP. Do it! Last camera you'll ever need. M9 will be good, until the M10 etc.
LeicaTom
Watch that step!
I also say go with the FILM MP, less retouching needed with real film as with digital, I have a M8 and I'm always having to spend a couple of mins on each pic to get it the way I want it......while I was shooting a M6 Classic, almost everything out of the camera was perfect/ depending on the scans and well next to NO photo retouching.....
Tom
Tom
wafflecakee
Well-known
MP and get wet printing!
filmfan
Well-known
Easy. The MP, otherwise known as the greatest camera ever to exist. It will also be something your children/grandchildren will inherit.
elude
Some photographer
For unlimited pleasure, I'd get the MP. It has a unique feel that I haven't found with any other camera. The M9 is absolutly remarkable, but I'd use it for $$work$$, not for my own obsessions. And that's simply because I prefer film, the darkroom process and wet printing.
Koni Kowa
Well-known
You already have a digital M, so get the MP.
Maximilian
Established
I got an MP a little over a year ago and I have never had as much inspiration as I do with this camera in my hands! Absolutely love using it!
Now I also have a medium format film camera and a digital point and shoot, which both have their places and get used a lot, but the MP is where my heart is at!
Now I also have a medium format film camera and a digital point and shoot, which both have their places and get used a lot, but the MP is where my heart is at!
jarski
Veteran
M9 raw files are much bigger than M8. so upgrade might mean also upgrade of your "digital darkroom", if its old one, and you prefer raw.
icebear
Veteran
Hey Joe,
if you don't mind shooting film, as you said, then there is definately no need to waste money on an upgrade from M8.2 to M9. Was there ever a shot that you couldn't blow to whatever printed size because of technical limitations of the M8.2 ?. The MP is one of the nicest pieces of mechanical equipment ever made, go for it.
if you don't mind shooting film, as you said, then there is definately no need to waste money on an upgrade from M8.2 to M9. Was there ever a shot that you couldn't blow to whatever printed size because of technical limitations of the M8.2 ?
. The MP is one of the nicest pieces of mechanical equipment ever made, go for it.
Oh no, you mean my M9 will magically just stop working the minute the M10 will be released?
Why do people keep insisting this when it comes to film cameras? What makes people think that children and grandchildren will care?