Sell M9 and Return to Film Only?

I never saw the appeal of having to pay so much for a digital camera, only to see it depreciate rapidly after a few months. So, I have plenty of film cameras, and only a P&S digital + cell phone.
I have a Nikon Coolscan 9000 scanner, so I go "digital" via that route.

What hurt me personally was a hard drive accident that wiped out years of digital images. Yes, I know I'm supposed to store them in multiple different drives and media, but who really has all that time?
Not an irredeemable loss, as I still have all of my negatives and slides, and I can start over again with the Coolscan. There goes all that time that I "saved" by not storing on multiple media / drives.

Anyway, this experience has soured me on the digital medium.
I would say to sell the M9 and cash out. An M5 is a really great camera, with probably the best spot meter that Leica ever put into a camera.
 
Robert Lai said:
I never saw the appeal of having to pay so much for a digital camera, only to see it depreciate rapidly after a few months. So, I have plenty of film cameras, and only a P&S digital + cell phone.
I have a Nikon Coolscan 9000 scanner, so I go "digital" via that route.

What hurt me personally was a hard drive accident that wiped out years of digital images. Yes, I know I'm supposed to store them in multiple different drives and media, but who really has all that time?
Not an irredeemable loss, as I still have all of my negatives and slides, and I can start over again with the Coolscan. There goes all that time that I "saved" by not storing on multiple media / drives.

Anyway, this experience has soured me on the digital medium.
I would say to sell the M9 and cash out. An M5 is a really great camera, with probably the best spot meter that Leica ever put into a camera.
Click to expand...

+1

Film is much better if you care about the longevity of your images at all. Your grand kids are not going to find a box full of working hard drives or SD cards full of readable raw files. Prints, sure, if you're constantly making archival pigment prints but I doubt that's happening. Even with good DAM procedures that only buys you the amount of time you're willing to put into it. Short of a catastrophic loss, my negatives and slides are safe. Even if you're using off site cloud storage it doesn't take much to imagine a few server failures at Dropbox or Google or Amazon.

Plus for me, there is something to the workflow of film that lets me re-examine contact sheets or chromes years after the event that works better on film. I'm much more likely to put together a portfolio of 5-10 year old images this way. Digital images are too 'in the moment' and quickly get shuffled away as time goes on.
 
About a year ago I decided to sell all digital stuff, got a Hasselblad 500 cm set and went back to the darkroom after 15 years. I bought a Lumix lx100 just to be sure. I keep it in my bag as a backup, hardly use it and never look at the pictures I shot with it. For me analog is so much more fun and I have not missed digital for one second. I you feel like using only film, just do it.
Regards,
Frank
 
Having a digital = convenience
Having a digital AND film = convenience and more options

Keep the M9 since you already have M lenses!
 
I use digital and film and have specific situations where each type proves particularly useful. However, I cannot help but feel that digital could work in all situations where I currently use film, where the opposite may not be true.

At this point I do not need to make your decision but, if for some reason I needed that money for something more important, then I would certainly sell the digital Leica in favor of my film cameras.

A decision which I would almost certainly regret immediately. :D
 
SaveKodak said:
+1

Film is much better if you care about the longevity of your images at all. Your grand kids are not going to find a box full of working hard drives or SD cards full of readable raw files. Prints, sure, if you're constantly making archival pigment prints but I doubt that's happening. Even with good DAM procedures that only buys you the amount of time you're willing to put into it. Short of a catastrophic loss, my negatives and slides are safe. Even if you're using off site cloud storage it doesn't take much to imagine a few server failures at Dropbox or Google or Amazon.

Plus for me, there is something to the workflow of film that lets me re-examine contact sheets or chromes years after the event that works better on film. I'm much more likely to put together a portfolio of 5-10 year old images this way. Digital images are too 'in the moment' and quickly get shuffled away as time goes on.
Click to expand...

Someone who doesn't look after digital images is I doubt going to be looking after there negatives that well.
I've probably lost a lot of film by being under deadline and not fixing and washing properly where as I know exactly where all my digital images are and they are perfectly safe.
Unless I'm wet printing my workflow is the same select in photomechanic into photoshop crop resize correct exposure colour and sharpen thats it.
Is it not that you would like a new camera, it seems sensible to have a film and digital with the same lens mount.
good luck.
 
Lately I feel the big reason for using film cameras is wet printing, and that can be done without selling your M9, which is a great camera that uses great lenses you already own, whenever you need its convenience... In other words, the problem -to me- would be owning an M9 that made me avoid film...
Cheers,
Juan
 
sell the car
keep the horse...

film is such a pita these days...even if you have your own darkroom and shoot b&w film.
today digital is the image maker of popular choice.
film can still be fun as a throw back experience but shooting it full time is a thing of the past for a minority of image makers.
 
ktmrider said:
For the past couple years I have owned an M9 and a couple M2's as well as half a dozen M mount lenses. I have been shooting them equally and honestly not very heavily.
Click to expand...

Honestly, lots of good opinion above, but before you can consider ANY of them, I think you need to reflect and ask yourself why you arent shooting the cameras you have now before you make any decision about selling\trading\etc.
 
I'm another who'd advocate getting the M240. I could never gel with the M9 but after 6 years of almost purely film, the M-P has moved me back in the digital direction, and I now have a Leica Q on its way. The disappointment caused by the poor scanning of the last lab I sent a trip's film to has made me re-evaluate film. They're rescanning as I type but it could be the last film-only trip. I also feel my M-P is better for landscape and the nuances of my lens collection.
Pete
 
it's been a year I don't touch my M9 in favour of the MP with ektar100, portra400 or trix400.

I don't sell it because I don't need it, but in this year I didn't miss the digital camera.

my smartphone is enough for snapshots
 
Robert Lai said:
I never saw the appeal of having to pay so much for a digital camera, only to see it depreciate rapidly after a few months.
Click to expand...

If you buy a new film camera, they actually depreciate far more rapidly than digital. Why? Because they are essentially the same camera that have been made for years, so there are plenty of them on the used market.
A new Nikon F6 is $2300. Take that new F6 out of the box and it is worth about $900. And I picked one up for less than that.
A new Leica M7 is $5K. Take it out of the box and you will be lucky to get $2500 for it. I picked my perfect one up for $1500.

A new Nikon D750 is $1900. Take it out of the box and it is worth $1500...
 
Fraser said:
Someone who doesn't look after digital images is I doubt going to be looking after there negatives that well...
good luck.
Click to expand...

What makes you think that? I care for my film a lot more than I do the digital stuff because the film stuff matters more to me. If it matters, you'll protect it or do it right no matter what format you're shooting.
 
Huss said:
If you buy a new film camera, they actually depreciate far more rapidly than digital. Why? Because they are essentially the same camera that have been made for years, so there are plenty of them on the used market.
A new Nikon F6 is $2300. Take that new F6 out of the box and it is worth about $900. And I picked one up for less than that.
A new Leica M7 is $5K. Take it out of the box and you will be lucky to get $2500 for it. I picked my perfect one up for $1500.

A new Nikon D750 is $1900. Take it out of the box and it is worth $1500...
Click to expand...

Who is buying new film cameras?

I bought a 'just-CLA'd' M4 for $1000.00 recently. It's still worth $1000.00. I bought a brand new Travelwide 4x5 camera for $139, and sold it for $450.00. Film equipment can easily keep 80-100% of it's value from the used market. But yes, you'd be crazy to buy a new F6 or M7. Then again, crazy people buy new M-As... Those things will not be holding their value.
 
SaveKodak said:
Who is buying new film cameras?

I bought a 'just-CLA'd' M4 for $1000.00 recently. It's still worth $1000.00. I bought a brand new Travelwide 4x5 camera for $139, and sold it for $450.00. Film equipment can easily keep 80-100% of it's value from the used market. But yes, you'd be crazy to buy a new F6 or M7. Then again, crazy people buy new M-As... Those things will not be holding their value.
Click to expand...

Not me!

I was making the point that the depreciation argument is actually worse for new film than new digital. Much much much worse as can be seen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom