gavinlg
Veteran
With all due respect, the IQ from an m9 is already technically better than 35mm film scanned on the best scanner commercially available - when the m10 comes, the m9 will still be technically better than 35mm film, so your argument is kind of silly.
eleskin
Well-known
AAhhhh, just compromise. Buy an M9P and never look back!!!!
Maximilian
Established
But photographs taken with the MP will always (or at least for a very, very long time to come) look classic and beautiful, a photograph taken with the M9 will look dated and very 2010-ish in a not very distant future.
I think Digital has it's place and I have no interest in arguing which is the better format, but for me personally, I by far prefer the look of a photograph taken with 35mm film compared to a digital photograph taken with the same lens, even if the digital photograph is "technically better".
Maximilian
el fotografo
Established
I have an M8 and film bodies (2 m6, 3 m5) and the M8 is my preferred urban flaneur camera for its ability to change ISO on the fly depending on the situation.
I can also shoot into the evening without having to think about changing to fast film.
My pre-M8 solution to this was to buy TWO of the same bodies and load 100 and 400 ASA in each, which is not an original idea.
I did this on a trip to Morocco (see my Flickr set) and I could photograph without having to deal with differences in lighting conditions, film speed, shutter speed, aperture.
This may not be an issue if someone is always 400 ASA film user.
The MP is a beautiful camera, however so are two M6's for the same price!
I can also shoot into the evening without having to think about changing to fast film.
My pre-M8 solution to this was to buy TWO of the same bodies and load 100 and 400 ASA in each, which is not an original idea.
I did this on a trip to Morocco (see my Flickr set) and I could photograph without having to deal with differences in lighting conditions, film speed, shutter speed, aperture.
This may not be an issue if someone is always 400 ASA film user.
The MP is a beautiful camera, however so are two M6's for the same price!
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Difficult choice ... one comes squarely from the past and is probably more of an emotional decision than a logical one and the other relies on technology, current and future!
It has to be both IMO.
It has to be both IMO.
huntjump
Well-known
quoted for truth!
But you said it yourself, you wouldnt feel comfortable walking around with a $7000 camera(used more like $6000). An MP is certainly less, but not THAT much less.
I dunno these questions are SO subjective, there is no right answer. I would suggest what someone else said, has the m8.2 fallen short TECHNICALLY for you? Do you need the FF?
otherwise, sounds like you want an MP
RedLion
Come to the Faire
I have decided!
I have decided!
Thank you all for helping me to decide!
I'm going to dump all my digital cameras, except for my Panasonic GF1, which I'll later trade in for either the upcoming GF "Pro" or the NEX-7, whichever is more compelling.
In what follows, I'm thinking out loud, so please understand, these are not complete thoughts!
The conclusion that I've come to is that all digital cameras are merely a means to an end, and I've previously owned a lot of them: 10D, 20D, 1Dmk3, 5dMk2, G1, GF1, M8.2, etc... they are all tools to achieve the "end" of getting "the shot" and as a platform to produce a raw file for further artistic manipulation.
As an amateur photographer I've also tried lots of different "types" of photography: Landscape, sports, wildlife, architecture, street, event, travel, portraiture, performance, music, etc.... and after having "sampled" all these genre's, the kind of photography that I enjoy most are 1) Travel and 2) Street candid.
For me, the obvious right "tool" for travel photography is a small and light - but high quality - digital camera. My trips are not exclusively photo safaris, and I don't want to ignore my spouse in order to get the ultimate shot of some spectacle. The gear has to be light, unobtrusive, and totally forgotten when it is hanging on my hip and we're enjoying our time together.
For street photography, I see the gestalt as that of the flaneur - being both observer and participant - and the process is as important as the final result. Correction: as an amateur who is not trying to compete in a contest or create a digitally manipulated work of art, the process is more important - I'll trade some image quality for it - although with my medium format stuff, I'm not giving up quality either but trading less volume for that quality.
I've shot both digital and film in the crowd and the feel or process of each is quite different for me. With digital I find my shooting style to be more aggressive, looking for "the shot" and taking lots of them on the way to "getting results" - everything about the situation would become a means to an end - getting "the shot".
With my film cameras, on the other hand, I'm more selective and thus observant in a different way - I'll "frame" a lot of shots, but I won't trip the shutter unless something about the evolving scene brings it out of me - there is less distinction between "means" and "ends". Just being present and enjoying the energy of the street becomes an "end" as well as getting some good shots.
I'll also add that there's something about a film camera with it's more manual operation that puts me into a different state of mind - I can't describe it yet, but in a word - it's a more joyful process for me.
So film it is. Guess I'll use Costo's economical develop and scan service until I can't stand their (low dynamic range 2000x3000) scans any longer and then seek a different scanning and workflow solution at that time. For my medium format stuff I'll keep using Walmart to develop and then scan them myself on my 9000f. For my purposes, Ektar 100 on 6x6 is just as good as my soon to be sold 5DmkII - I just can't push and pull it as much in post as I can with a raw file.
Thanks everyone!
Joe
PS.
On the Romanticism of Film Vs. the Scientific Superiority of Digital... I'll tackle that one some other time
I have decided!
Thank you all for helping me to decide!
I'm going to dump all my digital cameras, except for my Panasonic GF1, which I'll later trade in for either the upcoming GF "Pro" or the NEX-7, whichever is more compelling.
In what follows, I'm thinking out loud, so please understand, these are not complete thoughts!
The conclusion that I've come to is that all digital cameras are merely a means to an end, and I've previously owned a lot of them: 10D, 20D, 1Dmk3, 5dMk2, G1, GF1, M8.2, etc... they are all tools to achieve the "end" of getting "the shot" and as a platform to produce a raw file for further artistic manipulation.
As an amateur photographer I've also tried lots of different "types" of photography: Landscape, sports, wildlife, architecture, street, event, travel, portraiture, performance, music, etc.... and after having "sampled" all these genre's, the kind of photography that I enjoy most are 1) Travel and 2) Street candid.
For me, the obvious right "tool" for travel photography is a small and light - but high quality - digital camera. My trips are not exclusively photo safaris, and I don't want to ignore my spouse in order to get the ultimate shot of some spectacle. The gear has to be light, unobtrusive, and totally forgotten when it is hanging on my hip and we're enjoying our time together.
For street photography, I see the gestalt as that of the flaneur - being both observer and participant - and the process is as important as the final result. Correction: as an amateur who is not trying to compete in a contest or create a digitally manipulated work of art, the process is more important - I'll trade some image quality for it - although with my medium format stuff, I'm not giving up quality either but trading less volume for that quality.
I've shot both digital and film in the crowd and the feel or process of each is quite different for me. With digital I find my shooting style to be more aggressive, looking for "the shot" and taking lots of them on the way to "getting results" - everything about the situation would become a means to an end - getting "the shot".
With my film cameras, on the other hand, I'm more selective and thus observant in a different way - I'll "frame" a lot of shots, but I won't trip the shutter unless something about the evolving scene brings it out of me - there is less distinction between "means" and "ends". Just being present and enjoying the energy of the street becomes an "end" as well as getting some good shots.
I'll also add that there's something about a film camera with it's more manual operation that puts me into a different state of mind - I can't describe it yet, but in a word - it's a more joyful process for me.
So film it is. Guess I'll use Costo's economical develop and scan service until I can't stand their (low dynamic range 2000x3000) scans any longer and then seek a different scanning and workflow solution at that time. For my medium format stuff I'll keep using Walmart to develop and then scan them myself on my 9000f. For my purposes, Ektar 100 on 6x6 is just as good as my soon to be sold 5DmkII - I just can't push and pull it as much in post as I can with a raw file.
Thanks everyone!
Joe
PS.
On the Romanticism of Film Vs. the Scientific Superiority of Digital... I'll tackle that one some other time
Last edited:
Eric T
Well-known
M9, no question.
Jobin33
Established
M9. Indeed.
Fraser
Well-known
I have both that I bought only a few weeks ago and the MP is a great camera and in my opinion is the best of the Ms I would not give up the M9. I also would not bother shooting film if I wasn't processing and printing everything myself in fact I'm in the process of giving up scanning black and white and going back to wet printing.
Good luck with your choice you can't really go wrong with either!
Good luck with your choice you can't really go wrong with either!
PMCC
Late adopter.
Late to this thread, but +1 for the .58 MP, the ideal film flaneur's apparatus, with or without a bottom trigger winder. It's a good fit for the 35mm focal length, especially for specs wearers. My complaint about the MP is the slippy sharkskin covering, which I would replace with something having better grip and hand feel. But for normal and greater focal lengths, a late M6 Classic gives better value for money and same performance as an MP of same VF magnification.
icebear
Veteran
Hello Joe,
I guess this paragraph from your latest post sums up an issue that occurs to many "digital shooters". And it's only because memory cards are so cheap. Get a max. 1GB card (and only one spare) will help a little bit to think more before just pressing the shutter and taking multiple shots instead of waiting for the decisive moment (greetings from HCB
).Cheers
usayit
Well-known
Interesting, I dumped lots of digital gear (Canon EOS as well) and a few film bodies for the same reasons but the end result was quite different. Digital M's. As much as I like film, the convenience of digital fits my family oriented life.... I still have 1+ year old exposed rolls of film that I haven't gotten to developing, scanning, and printing yet.
Enjoy the MP, I'm sure it was the best choice for you.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
That is simply nonsensical. Even the most avid gear nut cannot reliably walk into a gallery, look at a photo, and tell you what camera was used to make it. Nobody gives a crap about that stuff. Great photos taken now on any camera will look great in the future, and yes, bad photos will look dated.
I would have voted M9 and an old meterless film M, which is where I'm at right now, but I think you'll be really happy with what you decided. Depending on your personality, it's possible to quickly forget how much money the camera cost when you're out on the street. The M9 does nothing to remind you it's a digicam, especially if, as I did, you turn off preview.
dave lackey
Veteran
The answer is really quite simple. Obviously, money is not a limit with you as it is for me. So that is not a constraint.
You are enjoying photography for your own use. Get the MP or whatever film M body you like because you can enjoy now and for a lifetime. You can always buy another digital M body down the road but the golden age of enjoying an MP is now!
Life is too short to not experience the best in life and missing out on an MP, or other film M-body, is one of those not to be missed! Why on earth would you NOT want to experience the MP?:angel:
You are enjoying photography for your own use. Get the MP or whatever film M body you like because you can enjoy now and for a lifetime. You can always buy another digital M body down the road but the golden age of enjoying an MP is now!
Life is too short to not experience the best in life and missing out on an MP, or other film M-body, is one of those not to be missed! Why on earth would you NOT want to experience the MP?:angel:
PatrickT
New Rangefinder User
X100!
(just kidding)
Good luck with the decision!
(just kidding)
Good luck with the decision!
thegman
Veteran
I think neither MP or M9 are choices made by the head. They are bought simply because you *want* them. So I'd forget any kind of logic, and simply think about which you'd rather see arrive in the hands of the FedEx man, and get that one.
Ben Z
Veteran
What this thread illustrates is that unless by "help me decide" one actually means "In my heart I've already made the decision but I need to go through the motions before I plunk down the plastic" it's really a pointless exercise. I can't tell someone what shoes will be most comfortable for them, what food will taste best to them, or what camera will spark their creativity. All I can do is tell them what does it for me, and unless we're clones with identical lives, it won't necessarily apply.
I owned an MP. I found nothing special about it, sold it and bought two M6's and a lens with the proceeds. I own 2 4000dpi film scanners and an Epson V700. I have not used them in quite a while. I find scanning tedious and unrewarding, and the results no better (and in some cases worse) than what I can get from a JPEG from my "obsolete" Canon 20D. I have not shot a roll of film in about 2 years, and the only reason I would shoot one now would be because I'd like to use one of my many film cameras that are currently gathering dust. Between the 5D (Mark 1, I see nothing lacking that would convince me to upgrade) and the M9 I have 2 cameras with IQ so good that the failure of any photograph to "wow" is due entirely to me as the photographer. The notion of buying an MP today for $5000 (more than double what I paid for an identical MP a few years back) is something I wouldn't entertain even if I won the Lotto.
So you see, my opinion is worth something to me and someone who agrees with me. To others it's somewhere between worthless and incensing.
I owned an MP. I found nothing special about it, sold it and bought two M6's and a lens with the proceeds. I own 2 4000dpi film scanners and an Epson V700. I have not used them in quite a while. I find scanning tedious and unrewarding, and the results no better (and in some cases worse) than what I can get from a JPEG from my "obsolete" Canon 20D. I have not shot a roll of film in about 2 years, and the only reason I would shoot one now would be because I'd like to use one of my many film cameras that are currently gathering dust. Between the 5D (Mark 1, I see nothing lacking that would convince me to upgrade) and the M9 I have 2 cameras with IQ so good that the failure of any photograph to "wow" is due entirely to me as the photographer. The notion of buying an MP today for $5000 (more than double what I paid for an identical MP a few years back) is something I wouldn't entertain even if I won the Lotto.
So you see, my opinion is worth something to me and someone who agrees with me. To others it's somewhere between worthless and incensing.
dave lackey
Veteran
Well, Ben, IMO the whole point of this forum and certainly the OP is just that...talking about things and getting perspectives from other folks. It is food for thought, not a matchmaking site. Your perspective is certainly welcomed as well, but I would hardly consider any post or thread worthless.:angel:
RedLion
Come to the Faire
Ben,
Thank you for your perspective! As an owner of a Leica digital M camera (M8.2), I find it to be neither fish nor foul. It has the rangefinder gestalt and good IQ, but is heavy and bloated compared to an M6 and is slow and clunky compared to a modern high IQ digital camera.
For a high volume high image quality blaster (for travel photography to a place or event), I must now gravitate towards something small and light - and that means either m43 or NEX (upcoming GF pro and/or NEX-7)
For all else, it's not about taking lots of pictures any more for me. An outing and maybe 1-2 rolls of 35mm or 120mm film are fine, and if I get a few keepers out of it, all the better.
So it all depends on the situation. If the resulting image is more important, then digital. If the boulevard stroll is more important, then film.
Joe
Thank you for your perspective! As an owner of a Leica digital M camera (M8.2), I find it to be neither fish nor foul. It has the rangefinder gestalt and good IQ, but is heavy and bloated compared to an M6 and is slow and clunky compared to a modern high IQ digital camera.
For a high volume high image quality blaster (for travel photography to a place or event), I must now gravitate towards something small and light - and that means either m43 or NEX (upcoming GF pro and/or NEX-7)
For all else, it's not about taking lots of pictures any more for me. An outing and maybe 1-2 rolls of 35mm or 120mm film are fine, and if I get a few keepers out of it, all the better.
So it all depends on the situation. If the resulting image is more important, then digital. If the boulevard stroll is more important, then film.
Joe