Vince Lupo
Whatever
Good points, and duly noted. I guess we'll see what happens!
furcafe
Veteran
It was a letdown for me when I 1st got my M9, & a continuing PITA, but that's because I've collected a variety of ancient oddball lenses in Leica screw, Contax RF, & Nikon RF mounts. Not entirely unexpected given my experience w/the M8 & R-D1, but there are many lenses I never bother to use on those bodies because of the crop factor.
When everything works together, however, it is very cool to be able to use a 1930s lens on a full-frame digital!
When everything works together, however, it is very cool to be able to use a 1930s lens on a full-frame digital!
Last edited:
LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
I was thinking to do the same for buying M8. If I sell my M6 TTL and couple of lenses nowadays I can afford and M8 but...I dont want all the hassle with UV filters and batteries...But to be honest I love the slide-like images coming from M8 cameras..
What shall I do?
What shall I do?
literiter
Well-known
There is no way I'd sell my M2 to finance another camera. Just wouldn't happen.
Hang onto the M2.
Hang onto the M2.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
I was thinking to do the same for buying M8. If I sell my M6 TTL and couple of lenses nowadays I can afford and M8 but...I dont want all the hassle with UV filters and batteries...But to be honest I love the slide-like images coming from M8 cameras..
What shall I do?
Save up for an M9
back alley
IMAGES
i have uv/ir filters on most of my lenses already (used on the rd1) but getting my lenses coded seems like a huge pita to me...so much so that i doubt that i would go for an m8...and i would have to sell a kidney to be able to afford the m9.
Joe Vitessa
Well-known
I still think you should try the 84-cent Walmart processing and get a $200 flat bed scanner. At 84 cents a roll, you could develop 8,333 rolls of 120 for the cost of an M9.
I do think there's a way for you to find cheaper processing than Penn. You'll have to sell a lot more than your M2 and M5 and a couple screwmount bodies to fund the M9, but it sounds like you want it, so go for it. It's not like you're giving up on film entirely since you'll be keeping some of your favorite cameras, right?
For me, it's just too much fun using old cameras. Sometimes I think the process of shooting with an old camera and developing the film is almost as pleasing as the final photo. And if that final photo is a winner, it's extra pleasing because I know the amount of work that went into it.
Some people make their own pasta; others buy it in the box.
I do think there's a way for you to find cheaper processing than Penn. You'll have to sell a lot more than your M2 and M5 and a couple screwmount bodies to fund the M9, but it sounds like you want it, so go for it. It's not like you're giving up on film entirely since you'll be keeping some of your favorite cameras, right?
For me, it's just too much fun using old cameras. Sometimes I think the process of shooting with an old camera and developing the film is almost as pleasing as the final photo. And if that final photo is a winner, it's extra pleasing because I know the amount of work that went into it.
Some people make their own pasta; others buy it in the box.
LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
We share the same worries...And the crop factor...And there is no way I can afford an M9...I think I will hang onto my M6! buying more lenses instead
sojournerphoto
Veteran
We share the same worries...And the crop factor...And there is no way I can afford an M9...I think I will hang onto my M6! buying more lenses instead
That would work too
Mike
sanmich
Veteran
Vince
Do you use the 105 elmar or the Xenon?
could you share your experience with these?
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Both the lenses are remarkable for the vintage. The Xenon produces beautiful shots, though of course that big barndoor hood is rather imposing. The Mountain Elmar is very unique, though of course with a maximum aperture of 6.3 and the closest focusing distance is just under 3m, it can be a bit limiting in terms of usage.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I've been lucky in that I've had everything but my 90/2.0 AA focus perfectly on the M9- nothing vintage in screw mount is in my arsenal however. The Summarit-M 50/1.5 is pretty darn fun on the M9...
250swb
Well-known
And if you get say three images to scan from each roll of film you have 24999 images to scan (not including contact sheets!). At say ten minutes per scan including brushing dust off and scanning (but not including all the other technical things like getting it wrong) thats 249990 minutes, or 4166 hours spent scanning negs. If your time is that cheap I hope you are a builder or house painter because I could do with you right now. At 4166 hours out of a working mans life given eight hours a day labour an M9 looks like a very cheap option considering you don't have to pay for the film, or processing.
Steve
I have two cameras that have file formats not supported by "modern" Photoshop. The Kodak DC120 and DCS200. For the latter, I wrote my own file conversion software. I HEX dumped the RAW files and figured it out. The DC120- still have a machine that runs the conversion software to turn RAW into JPEG. The two cameras only support RAW format, no onboard JPEG engine.
Most cameras that "are only 10 years old" will produce JPEGS. Most 10 year old consumer-oriented cameras do not gain much by shooting RAW over JPEG.
Come over to my house. I keep a WIN95B machine running with an Adaptec PCI SCSI card, Photoshop 3.0, and most of the adapters for older SCSI based cameras. But- starting with the Kodak DCS400 series in 1994, the media was removable. PCMCIA cards for the DCS400 series and Nikon E-Series DSLR's. My DC-50 used PCMCIA cards, and the DC-120 uses CF.
The DCS200 is one of the few Digital cameras with a built in Disk Drive that cannot be easily removed. But, it does take a "Hitch-Hiker" SCSI drive externally.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Steve,
And people accuse ME of overstating things!
Seriously, a beautiful reductio ad absurdum. Use film if you like it; use film if it makes economic sense for the way you shoot; but don't necessarily assume it makes a lot of economic sense.
I've had my M9 about 15 months, and shot about 10,000 pics: call it 300 36-exposure films. That's probably a fairly light year.
At $7000, assuming no residual value for the M9, that's $23 a film, and falling. Yes, Lightroom etc. takes time, but a lot less time than driving to the lab (and we don't all have a Wal-Mart nearby, let alone a Wal-Mart we trust) and scanning. Also, I can download 10 shots at a moment's notice.
At 5 years, 60 months, and the same rate of shooting, that'll be 40,000 pics, 1200 films, $5.80 a film. I can live with that. At 10 years, assuming no glitches, it's halved.
More realistically, my nearest good fast lab charged me 23€ (call it $30 for ease of calculation) for a film and en-prints. I'm already ahead of the game...
Cheers,
R.
x-ray
Veteran
I just went through this too. it was a combination of factors including increasing film / processing costs, reduction in emulsion selection and availability of good processing. I only shoot large format and medium format E-6 if I shoot color and have to ship film to Atlanta. We have a lab remaining here but QC is terrible now. I live in the south and shipping film in the summer is an issue unless you fedex over night which is quite expensive.
I have a canon 1DsII system that I use in business but wanted something more. I considered the M9 and I know there are a lot of excellent images made with them but the problems associated with wide lenses and a few other issues scared me away. I just didn't feel it was the right camera at the moment. I hated that because i really wanted one. Anyway I decided to sell a good parcel of my film gear and start moving into higher quality digital both for personal and business use.
I made a decision based on both my studio / commercial and personal use. I love working with my view cameras in both commercial and the field. I've missed the control of the view camera and dealt with the limitations of a 35mm dslr and tilt shift lenses. I finally made the decision and parted with some of my film equipment but kept enough to do what I want with B&W film at least for a while. I purchased a Hasselblad cfv-39 back and Technikardan 23s to use it on along with my Hasselblad system.
At a later time I may sell even more equipment because I don't want to eventually get stuck with gear i won't use and can't sell because of lack of film or price of film. Not trying to start a fight but I don't see film consumption increasing and see a steady decline in emulsions available. I think the trend of declining choices is the future and price increases until we no longer can afford or purchase film.
I've been a film shooter since I was 7 years old and processed and printed since my dad taught me when I was 9. I have to say I like film and it was really hard to give into the change but it was something I had to do. Now one week into the new digital gear and I love it. It's a totally different process than shooting with a DSLR and a totally different look from my Canons and I can say I think I will love it as much as film.
MF digital isn't for most people but the transition to digital from film can be good. It's just a matter of accepting it's different from film in many ways but similar in many. the beauty of digital is it's flexibility and the ability you have to shape the look you want. You're no longer bound by the limits of the emulsion you're shooting. Using raw files you can design your own emulsion and define a look different then anyone else.
Jeff S
Well-known
We share the same worries...And the crop factor...And there is no way I can afford an M9...I think I will hang onto my M6! buying more lenses instead
See post #80. I could have afforded the M9 (and one for back-up), but found it unnecessary at less than huge print sizes, especially since I took some of the savings available through M8.2 purchases and focused on the printer, inks, papers, profiles, etc. instead.
I developed and printed my own Leica film M work for over 20 years and my current digital print results do not disappoint. In fact, my productivity has increased significantly, while my process discipline has remained intact. More time to enjoy shooting...with no thought whatsoever to filters or crops...second nature after a brief time.
Jeff
PS More lenses are generally overrated. I bet most people use one or two lenses 90% of the time once they know their style and preferences, and learn to adapt accordingly.
Last edited:
denrusso
Newbie
I think in order to answer this question, the respondent needs to provide some context as to what type of 'photographer' they are.
My start to photography was a one year stint at School of Visual Arts, studying cinematography (the best year I ever spent in college). Changed majors and left film. I purchased my first digital SLR camera in early 2007, a D40 wth a 18-200 lens. In 2009 I upgraded to a D700 and started to shoot sports (equestrian events on Long Island, NY). This was all hobby, never made a penny on any of this. Got bored and sold everything. Purchased an M6 with 50 cron and 35 cron asph.
The past few weeks I've been thinking of trying to get together enough funds to purchase an M9. Look, I just sent 8 rolls of film into NCPS that cost me $200 (developing, prints, and scans), so I started to think maybe going back to digital.
I've been visiting my local shop frequently and they've been laying it on hard to purchase an M9 (they just got a black one in last week). Stopped by tonight with my gear to talk trade in and low-and-behold they just took receipt of a used M9 which they are selling for $5200. I was able to mount my lenses and take some test shots.
To be honest, I was unimpressed. I wasn't $5200 blown away by the camera. To each their own I suppose - maybe I need to spend more time looking at this camera.
Good luck with whatever you choose - I know for certain this choice is driving me crazy!!
Thanks,
dr
My start to photography was a one year stint at School of Visual Arts, studying cinematography (the best year I ever spent in college). Changed majors and left film. I purchased my first digital SLR camera in early 2007, a D40 wth a 18-200 lens. In 2009 I upgraded to a D700 and started to shoot sports (equestrian events on Long Island, NY). This was all hobby, never made a penny on any of this. Got bored and sold everything. Purchased an M6 with 50 cron and 35 cron asph.
The past few weeks I've been thinking of trying to get together enough funds to purchase an M9. Look, I just sent 8 rolls of film into NCPS that cost me $200 (developing, prints, and scans), so I started to think maybe going back to digital.
I've been visiting my local shop frequently and they've been laying it on hard to purchase an M9 (they just got a black one in last week). Stopped by tonight with my gear to talk trade in and low-and-behold they just took receipt of a used M9 which they are selling for $5200. I was able to mount my lenses and take some test shots.
To be honest, I was unimpressed. I wasn't $5200 blown away by the camera. To each their own I suppose - maybe I need to spend more time looking at this camera.
Good luck with whatever you choose - I know for certain this choice is driving me crazy!!
Thanks,
dr
Jeff S
Well-known
And exactly how did you process and view results? Only way to properly judge IMO is using a disciplined workflow to produce a final print. Computer screens don't provide adequate info, nor does a sloppy print process. The chain and its weakest link and all that. One wouldn't judge a film Leica by sending a few shots on a roll to the local photomat...I hope.
As I stated above, I looked at real prints, and the M8.2 suffices for my style and print sizes. For others the M9 will be warranted. And for others, silver prints will be the only way to go. To each their own...but each approach demands the same dedicated process workflow.
Jeff