MP or M9 ... Help me Decide!

[bobby_novatron]

As an enthusiastic film shooter, I feel I must jump into the fray and defend my Epson v700's honour.

The Epson v-series of flatbeds CAN produce stunning scans -- but you need to spend time learning the idiosyncrasies of the scanner and software. After many weeks of trial and error, I finally figured out the right scanning regime that works for me. Height adjustments, ANR glass, custom holders, software settings, etc. It's all quite maddening. If I didn't love the look of film so much, I would have given up long ago and just shot my Canon digicam without a second thought.

That being said, I think the current prices of the MP / M7 are quite stratospheric. Just for laughs, I went to the Leica site yesterday and ran an a la carte MP. It topped out at $5000 and change. That's absolutely ridiculous, IMHO.

So my vote is to spend the money on a couple M4 or M6 Classic bodies, leaving you with enough $$$ left over for a decent lens (or two), a brick of your fave film, and lots of cash for lab + scanning afterward.

Another option: the m43 format, as in the Sony NEX-7 or various offerings from Panasonic, Olympus, etc. The new Olympus E-P3 was just announced recently, and it sounds like a decent little camera, and about 1/10th the price of an M9. You just have to put up with a 1.5x crop factor on your legacy glass.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go massage my negative holders and warm up the steam boiler on my Epson v700... 🙂

 

[250swb]

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.

Whenever I read or hear that I know its money talking.

Lets be honest and face it, unless the equipment is slow to use the idea of being more selective or slowing down would never have come into photography (particularly 35mm) if it were not for the expense. And anybody who could afford lots of film, or who were so dedicated to their art, has always blasted away to get the image, they worked at it by using film, and as much as possible.

In the pantheon of great images made on a Leica a small number are the result of contemplation and study, the vast majority (using the typical Winogrand, Frank, and HCB trio as examples) are made at a ratio of five hundred exposures to one lasting image. So whoever started it, this myth that contemplation is better than work, started it because they were short of cash or didn't want to go into the darkroom that day and process twenty rolls.

Now we have digital that can make endless numbers of images at no expense and what do photographers do? Take a holiday! If standing looking at the scenery is enough (and why not, its often very nice) then a P&S Olympus XA is enough. Editing skills are even more important with a digital camera because of the increased numbers, but the final image at 500/1 is no less than any other, it just stands a chance of being even better than a one off snap on a rare and expensive roll of 36 🙂

Steve

 

[peter_n]

I think you made the right choice for you. I've stayed with film because I shoot B&W and like the look of Tri-X and Agfapan. I also use a dSLR for family stuff and that works great too. Good luck finding a 0.58 mag MP they are few and far between...

 

[jsrockit]

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.

This is all in one's head. You do not have to photograph differently just because it is digital.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

This is all in one's head. You do not have to photograph differently just because it is digital.

That's true. You really can control these impulses if you try. I shoot film and digital identically...it helps, though, to have a digicam that feels like your film cam. Which is one of the things I love about the M9...

 

[Ben Z]

And anybody who could afford lots of film, or who were so dedicated to their art, has always blasted away to get the image, they worked at it by using film, and as much as possible.

In the pantheon of great images made on a Leica a small number are the result of contemplation and study, the vast majority (using the typical Winogrand, Frank, and HCB trio as examples) are made at a ratio of five hundred exposures to one lasting image. So whoever started it, this myth that contemplation is better than work, started it because they were short of cash or didn't want to go into the darkroom that day and process twenty rolls.

What evidence do you have that that's true? The photographers you mention did not use motor-driven Nikons (the fastest of their time). Their shooting speed was limited to the quickness of their right thumb. 1 fps? 2 fps? How long does a decisive moment last? I shot a lot of nature photography on film, in the latter days Nikon F5's and Canon 1VHS's. Those could rip through a 36-exp film in less time than it took to reload. I never found that leaning on the shutter release in high-speed continuous got me more than the occasional accidental keeper. The judicious approach was much more successful, and was also the one advocated by all the accomplished nature photographers I heard in lectures, books, and workshops. To a man, they denounced motor-driven sequences as a means of upping one's keeper count. Knowledge of subject behavior, what time of day and where to be to get the shot you want; predicting action/expression, understanding light and shooting angle...those were the "tricks of the trade" they practiced. People being merely a higher order of animal, I have no doubt the same holds true.

It wasn't cost that swayed me toward measure film consumption, and it isn't the lack of cost with digital (a myth, IMO---to me my $7000 M9 is merely a $1500 M6+$5500 of film&processing mailers😀) that keeps me shooting exactly as I shot film. Perhaps the perceived costlessness of digital photography lures some people into shooting in great quantity, but I doubt whether it improves anyone's photography. The immediacy of seeing the results with digital, now that's a learning aid!

 

[jsrockit]

Which is one of the things I love about the M9...

Which is probably why we feel that way... 😀

 

[Seafury]

M9

If you're shooting too fast with digital then slow down. It's not the gear, it you.

 

[Maximilian]

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.

Well, we will just have to wait and see.

I work in the film industry and with moving images, it is extremely obvious when something was shot if it was shot on some form of digital camera (or video, beta or any other kind of non-film camera). It can still look good to many people, but it will never look timeless, which is what I personally aim to achieve in both my still and motion work.

Sure, digital still cameras are much better then digital motion cameras today, but to think that images taken with digital still cameras today won’t look dated soon, is (to me) very naive. We are just at the very starting gates with digital still cameras and the look of the images will change a lot and very fast for many many years to come! But if someone likes the look of it now, then that is all that matters and I am not arguing against that.

Best,
Maximilian

 

[jsrockit]

I work in the film industry and with moving images, it is extremely obvious when something was shot if it was shot on some form of digital camera (or video, beta or any other kind of non-film camera). It can still look good to many people, but it will never look timeless, which is what I personally aim to achieve in both my still and motion work.

Film will never be a timeless medium. There is no such thing. Good work is good work. Content is what makes a photo dated unless you are a technical nerd.

 

[Maximilian]

Film will never be a timeless medium. There is no such thing. Good work is good work. Content is what makes a photo dated unless you are a technical nerd.

I never said film is timeless, I said timeless is what I aim for. In 20, 30, 50 years people will have a hard time dating a picture taken today with a film camera (apart from fashion on the people, of course). In that time, even the non technical nerds will be able to approximately date when a picture taken today with a digital camera was taken.

This is all being taken out of context though and I am still not saying that digital is not a worthy medium - it is and soon enough all of us will be shooting it. What I am saying, is that modern digital cameras take pictures that will look dated in a not very distant future. If someone wants to lay down the kind of cash on a M9 that he or she will probably not even use within a decade, awesome all power to them! I wouldn't though since the still photography I do is, out of about 320-330 days of the year, only for my own personal projects and not for clients. On those few "working for client" days I will gladly rent a different camera (which I'm not even the one paying for) if needed. On the rest of the days, I still prefer my pictures to look as timeless as possible.

 

[jsrockit]

In 20, 30, 50 years people will have a hard time dating a picture taken today with a film camera (apart from fashion on the people, of course). In that time, even the non technical nerds will be able to approximately date when a picture taken today with a digital camera was taken.

Kodachrome from the 50s and 60s looks completely dated to me... (not that it is a bad thing).

 

[ramosa]

Man, what a question! A fine one, don't get me wrong, but a comparison of such different worlds--film versus digital. For me, it's a no-brainer--go digital. But that's just me. I can't imagine a return to the world of film and processing and then scanning. Like it or not, I'm now digital through and through.

 

[thegf]

Easy. The MP, otherwise known as the greatest camera ever to exist. It will also be something your children/grandchildren will inherit.

i happily own an m6, but have thought of an MP for this reason. i started using my father's nikkormat from the 70s, so it only makes sense.

however, the existence of film, etc. when it comes time for my yet unborn children to use the MP is a different story.

 

[thegf]

one thing that people are neglecting is archival value.

sure, you can get pictures from your camera to flickr in about 10 seconds, but when your harddrive crashes all is lost. flickr crashes? all of your work is gone. to think that flickr or any other online service (even Google) will be around forever is a fallacy. at some point, it will be far too inconvenient to store things digitally.

instead, we live in a world of egoistic instant gratification. i suspect that photography twenty years ago was about process and about having something to share with friends and family. now, the concern seems to be technical discussion regarding chromatic aberrations or whatever insignificant photo qualities that can be debated without focusing on what matters - the picture itself. that, in combination with the need to be "explored".

as much as i like the idea of an amazingly sharp, high resolution digital camera, i think i want something that will last longer than my harddrive. and i want to share my photos in a more significant way than via email.

sorry for rambling...

 

[rogerzilla]

As yiou have the funds, I'd certainly consider the M9, although I'm no fan of digital. It does give sharper results than film although the dynamic range isn't quite the same. The big problems for me would be the viewfinder magnification and future serviceability.

Note that some lenses don't work on the M9, like the Summicron DR, and others (especially wide angles) are very poor because the light hits the edges of the sensor at an extreme angle causing colour fringing. The short CV lenses are useless on digital, for example.

 

[jamato8]

Digital offers so much that for me, film can't but digital, for me, has never equalled film.

 

[jsrockit]

one thing that people are neglecting is archival value.

Who's neglecting this?

sure, you can get pictures from your camera to flickr in about 10 seconds, but when your harddrive crashes all is lost. flickr crashes? all of your work is gone. to think that flickr or any other online service (even Google) will be around forever is a fallacy. at some point, it will be far too inconvenient to store things digitally.

Hmmm, multiple hard drives for back up solves this issue. Photos at flickr in case of fire. I doubt my house would burn down the same day flickr dies.

instead, we live in a world of egoistic instant gratification. i suspect that photography twenty years ago was about process and about having something to share with friends and family.

Polaroid twenty years ago, digital today... and I would argue that today's digital photography, by the masses, is more about friends and family than in the past. "Friends" and "Family" photography is more ubiquitous than ever due to cell phones.

now, the concern seems to be technical discussion regarding chromatic aberrations or whatever insignificant photo qualities that can be debated without focusing on what matters - the picture itself. that, in combination with the need to be "explored".

You never read Popular Photography or Shutterbug (or any other technical photo magazine) twenty years ago then...

as much as i like the idea of an amazingly sharp, high resolution digital camera, i think i want something that will last longer than my harddrive. and i want to share my photos in a more significant way than via email.

You do know that you can print digital right? Also, try making a back up of your negatives.

 

[JoeV]

The thing I think about when posed with the question "MP or M9?" is not the choice of cameras, or the differences between the two models.

No, what I think the question is really asking is a choice between two entirely different forms of photographic practice, the only thing in common between the polar opposites being offered being the rangefinder viewing and red (or black) dot branding of the two cameras.

The question is really about one's practice of photography, one's working methods. Despite the similarities between these two cameras, there is a world of difference between choosing the one versus choosing the other. When you choose an MP, for instance, you aren't really choosing the MP itself, as much as you are choosing a film-dedicated photographic practice. In my mind, that's the crucial question to be decided.

~Joe

 

[andredossantos]

Personally, if I had the money to buy an M9, Id buy one. To shoot film, Id use a M2, M3, M4, etc.

An MP is not "worth" it, TO ME! Its no doubt an amazing camera. Not meaning to denigrate the MP or MP users.