New cameras for old - Leica wants to buy your M9

f16sunshine said:
Forget it!
The EPA could not be counted on to police safe peanut shell disposal at a baseball stadium (not that hard to be safe)!
Hell.... Hydroquonone alone is not going anywhere. Besidees being a part of some developers, it's also in many off the shelf cosmetics as well as at the dermatologist to "bleach" certain intimate body parts.
The EPA does not have the teeth nor the mandate to do much of anything.
Would love to be wrong on this one :eek:
Click to expand...

Well somehow they've convinced half the world that CO2 is a pollutant including the US Supreme Court. Just saying.... :p
 
f16sunshine said:
Hehe maybe .... but they have not convinced them to do anything about it! :angel:
Click to expand...

If only all the plant life on the planet could talk.....

But back to on topic....I'm very happy with my M-E and bought it as I was late to Leica to get on any list for the new M and did not want yo wait to get started shooting with an M camera.

Now that I've had mine for over a year and a half and have run up against the memory buffer and like to have clean ISO 1600 will look into upgrading.

Live view will come in handy for when I buy a super wide too.
 
Steve Bellayr said:
Dante Stella could be right. But, ten years ago I was buy record albums for 4 for a dollar at thrift stores, and sometimes even 5 for a dollar. Today, they are at the same locations $2 each and going fast. Second and Charles in my area sells so for $30+. Best Buy is selling turntables. Are we at a 'nadir' of film? Will film resurrected when people realize that every 5-7 years that they need to buy another digital camera? (This is not a condemnation of film cameras.) Leica as gone thru three incarnations of its digital before an M6 (or Nikon with the F3HP) has worn out. As for Dante Stella's comment I do agree that the future of film does not look good but 10 years ago when I was buying record albums the future for turntables did not look good. So, who can predict the future?
Click to expand...

Steve, turntables are a great example of how nostalgia technology works. There is an interest in something that is retro. You see some more of this product somewhere and conclude, "hey, it's coming back." I think the what stands behind this is that:

- you see used record prices go up a little because the supply has been utterly decimated, both by wear and tear and people simply thowing old records away (consider that unless there is a store that buys them near you, most LPs don't have a value even equal to the cost of mailing them). I'm sure you've thrown away a good many of the 4/$1 thrift store records when you got home and found out they had been abused. I know I have.

- you see new turntables - but the USB turntable at Urban Outfitters or the cheap Sonys being sold at Best Buy are not capable of making an LP actually sound better than a CD (they're actually more capable of destroying a new LP on the first play). They are not the turntables of the 1970s. Yes, you can get new super-specialist playback equipment today - but it's not priced for the mainstream and never will be. And fixing old turntables can be very expensive.

- most new LPs run around $30 apiece. Yes, many of them are on 280g+ vinyl, but they're still much more expensive than buying MP3s of the same music. And the new vinyl selection is fairly limited compared to the back-catalogue of used vinyl (spanning about 60 years) and what is out in digital format.

But despite some similarities, I perceive that a big difficulty in comparing vinyl records to film (and turntables to cameras) is that film is a completely consumed piece of media that needs to be available on an ongoing basis (and at some reasonable intersection of price, performance, and pleasure) for a camera to have a functional purpose. Otherwise, the camera is a collectors item that's not on the road anymore. The loss of economical new vinyl records is not going to stop an existing turntable from playing your collection of LPs.

Dante
 
Dante_Stella said:
Yes, you can get new super-specialist playback equipment today - but it's not priced for the mainstream and never will be. And fixing old turntables can be very expensive.
Dante
Click to expand...


Yes ..that`s always the problem.
When something looses mass market appeal it will always disappear eventually .

I have a large vinyl collection a recently thought of revamping my Linn Sondeck.

It would have cost me $350 for basic adjustments and easily $900 to replace a few parts.

Much as I love vinyl I didn`t feel it was cost effective.

To that extent ,sadly,the analogy with film is apposite.
 
They will need something to do with all those M9s. They should swap me one for my M8.2. One that works, I mean.
 
Back to the original topic: does anyone have any idea of the amount that Leica values a used M9 towards purchase of an M240?

Even if the value from Leica is below what one could sell the M9 privately (which I imagine it will be), this deal would save the hassle of finding a reliable buyer, dealing with payment, shipping, and any potential dis-satisfaction that the buyer may have with the camera. That have some advantages.
 
The proportion of private sale value may be similar to what Leica allowed on the M9 when an M8 could be repaired - as I recall, a third less than what the M8 would have been worth in a private sale.

Dante
 
Roger Hicks said:
You may find that actually, he is a better analyst than most. Read carefully what he says, not what you want to think he is saying.
Click to expand...

This is an incredibly condescending response. I read what Dante Stella wrote, and I had no trouble in understanding it - in fact I don't see any ambiguity which I could misinterpret, despite my denseness:

"I think that within the next 10 years, the number of film Ms "on the road" is going to be negligible. Film is constantly increasing in price and decreasing in variety, the commercial processing infrastructure is fading away, enlargers are no longer made, film scanners are barely hanging on, and the independent repair people will be retired or in the ground. Leica, I'm sure, will be happy to do a $400 CLA/de-cootiefication on the film M you find at Goodwill, but that's not going to be economically realistic."

Do you genuinely think that's a serious and useful vision of the next decade? As I said, I was reading this sort of post on photographic fora ten and more years ago. A "negligible" number of film Ms still in use? Picking-up a film M at a charity store (implicitly for a few tens of dollars)?
Even though the mass market for film has plummeted uncontrollably over the last few years (I'm fully aware of that), there's been a recent increase in pro film sales, and a significant revival amongst a younger generation untainted by old prejudices against working in the darkroom, or the supposed 'limitations' of photographing with film.

Sometimes I might even have hoped that this vision of 'giveaway' film Leicas had come true - but instead I continue to see the prices of good quality used cameras climb ever upwards (including the ones I own or have owned myself), whereas I've taken enormous losses on my digital cameras (including Leicas).

And for my purposes, the films that are still available are plentiful and better than I dreamt they could be, when I misguidedly thought only one or two emulsions were still being manufactured. Additionally, new film scanners are being made - even for 120 film.

What I see in Dante Stella's repetitive disparagement of film on this forum in recent times is just choice supportive bias - a simple case of cognitive dissonance. I used to read his website with interest, and understand the respect with which his opinions are held by members of the forum, but I've been disappointed by this monotonous pattern.

Life is too short to get into stupid online conflicts, but because of my own experience - missing out on the incredibly rich and varied world of film imaging because I read and trusted 'experts' telling me that the medium was already dead over a decade ago - I really can't sit by and let a new generation of doomsayers mislead the curious or the novices.
They are helping to destroy the medium, eternally dragging down the debate into negativity and ruin, and in doing so ensuring their vision becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.
 
Mani, you sound a little bitter. Take responsibility for your own actions!

Dante has been a huge facilitator for Legacy gear, with his many great technical articles.

Of course, film may become so rare that film work becomes quite valuable :)

For now anyway, the "fetish" appears to be plenty strong.

As to the real topic, leica has been replacing sensors on the M9's like mad. Every M9 they can take out of the market means their spare parts are going to last longer.

Many of us have no lust at all for the M240.

My m9 last nite:

image by unoh7, on Flickr
Don't worry baby, I ain't trading you in!

Leica might be threatened by all the clean M9s going for 3200ish too :)
 
Mani doesn't seem bitter to me, nice smear. Roger suggests the guy shut up and listen when some internet expert speaketh, mani says **** that, so you want to jump in and talk down to the guy?

That mini tripod setup looks like a good way to dump a camera onto the rocks and dirt, btw. Maybe a better tripod would be...better.
 
mani said:
I really can't sit by and let a new generation of doomsayers mislead the curious or the novices.
They are helping to destroy the medium, eternally dragging down the debate into negativity and ruin, and in doing so ensuring their vision becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Click to expand...

Regardless what many would think of the tone (which I personally have no issue with) I have to agree wholeheartedly.

I spent a year considering whether I should ditch film and when I finally got the M9 I was rather disappointed.

All the completely negative discussions on the outlook of film influenced my judgment and spent a year selling, saving, buying etc. It was my decision, so ultimately I only had myself to blame; that said, nowdays when I see a “film is dead” thread I just don’t bother to look at it anymore.

We all know that film is expensive but so is digital. Sometimes I think that “digital" made photography a lot more expensive, for film and digital users alike. Sure, I can take pictures with a P&S but the machines we all love to shoot with are not cheap and the depreciation of digital equipment is just eye-watering.
 
What forums were you guys at where you became hypnotized by these doomsayers?

There's certainly no evidence of this "film is dead" feeling around here--lamenting supply excepted. And in fact, the reverse is true.

At RFF, digital is second-class, LOL

Why do I have this crappy camera? Some guy in a forum told me to get it!

Seriously?

I guess I know who to blame for the several film rigs sitting on my shelves loaded and unused. The film nuts! They made me buy that damn contax!
 
You may not like the prediction but that doesn't mean he is wrong. As I indicated in an earlier post, toward the end 2012 I was buying 30 meter rolls of Kodak TMX 100 for $50. It now sells for a little over $70 on sale. That is a 40% price increase in about one year and a half. That is a big jump in price. In about that same period of time there have been several films discontinued by Kodak and by Fuji.

No, extrapolate that out by 10 years and tell me...what do you come up with?

And if you believe that to be limited to Kodak I have news for you. Even Freestyle has increased the prices on their store brands by about that much as well, the only exception being Arista Premium, mostly because they are selling out remaining stock with no more available.

If prices continue to increase the same rate as the past 2 years, then the price of my precious TMX will be around $375 for each 30 meter roll. Even if you cut that 40% increase in half it is still $175 for each 30 meter roll. At what point do you decide the price is too high?

So, you can kick back all you want because it doesn't fit your personal view of the world. But it doesn't make it wrong.
 
There is no reason to shoot digital when I can shoot film. None. What happens in the future we will see, but debating that is nothing more than a flip of a coin.
 
Ranchu said:
There is no reason to shoot digital when I can shoot film. None. What happens in the future we will see, but debating that is nothing more than a flip of a coin.
Click to expand...

This I agree with Ranchu. Dante may be right but I intend to get all the use out of my ZI and M3 before it gets so expensive even I can't keep it up. Maybe deflation will reverse the process. Even if that doesn't happen I suspect I'll be coating my own 4x5 or 8x10 rather than give up. :D

EDIT - I am even building a 16x20 camera. If I end up coating my own and contact printing I may as well go big!
 
I do want to clarify that I shoot almost all of my serious work on film, primarily on Fuji G690BLs and now a Silvestri H 6x12. I do this even with projects where the final output has to take a turn through digital. And I'd wager that I buy and use a lot more film than many people who self-identify as hard-core film people. But I use film, medium-format film cameras, and killer Fujinons and Schneiders because they are reliable, have an overwhelming resolution and tonality advantage for architectural work, and are capable of getting a wide DR on a single shot (especially with TMY).

But for personal stuff, it's an M typ 240 or an X-Pro1 all the way. You have no idea what types of turnaround times my in-laws require for pictures of my children. :)

And for people that seem to be flying off the handle - I'm not the one that came onto a Digital M thread about trade-ups with a facile comment about how film Leicas are better/will last longer/etc. But once you open that door, I won't hesitate to hit back with my perspective as a long-term film user: for all but the richest or most fanatical, this party won't last forever.

Dante
 
mani said:
This is an incredibly condescending response. I read what Dante Stella wrote, and I had no trouble in understanding it - in fact I don't see any ambiguity which I could misinterpret, despite my denseness:

"I think that within the next 10 years, the number of film Ms "on the road" is going to be negligible. Film is constantly increasing in price and decreasing in variety, the commercial processing infrastructure is fading away, enlargers are no longer made, film scanners are barely hanging on, and the independent repair people will be retired or in the ground. Leica, I'm sure, will be happy to do a $400 CLA/de-cootiefication on the film M you find at Goodwill, but that's not going to be economically realistic."

Do you genuinely think that's a serious and useful vision of the next decade?
Click to expand...

I don't have an opinion one way or another on the state of the film market in 10 years, I only use film at the moment, but my knowledge of the film market pretty much ends at the shop at which I buy it.

I think Dante Stella may well be right, because it's hard for him to be wrong, with that quote being as wide ranging as it is.

'Negligible' is pretty subjective, 'film increasing in price and variety', so is just about everything. Smartphones are the big thing these days, and there is far less choice now than when smartphones first appeared (I'm thinking Nokia 9000 and the like). Things like 'fading away' and 'barely hanging on' can be attributed to many markets as it's kind of vague.

Like I say, I'm not saying Dante Stella is right or wrong, I just don't have the knowledge to back it up. I do think that without stats and facts, pretty much all the opinions you'll read on the future of film, including mine, are largely worthless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom