Selling My Film Cameras for an M9 -- Wise?

Jeff S said:
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
Click to expand...
Most emphatically agree - and if you apply postprocessing techniques suitable for a D700 to M9 DNGs the results will be suboptimal - an understatement.
 
Now I know an M8.2 is not an M9 but I just returned a M8.2 to Tamarkin after using it for a day. I was not impressed with the camera for the cost and the noise above 640 sucked. A friend of mine shoots for National Geo and is very happy with his M9 but he referred to the M8.2 sent him by National Geo as a $6000 paper weight.

Am back to M2/4 while thinking about a dSLR or perhaps Fuji X100 or save for M9. I will probably just keep using the film M's while I can.
 
rpilottx said:
Now I know an M8.2 is not an M9 but I just returned a M8.2 to Tamarkin after using it for a day. I was not impressed with the camera for the cost and the noise above 640 sucked. A friend of mine shoots for National Geo and is very happy with his M9 but he referred to the M8.2 sent him by National Geo as a $6000 paper weight.

Am back to M2/4 while thinking about a dSLR or perhaps Fuji X100 or save for M9. I will probably just keep using the film M's while I can.
Click to expand...

Let's turn the table. If I were coming from a digital workflow, picked up a film camera for a day and shot several rolls, had little-to-no idea of an optimal analog workflow, what do you suppose I'd conclude as to the worthiness of film use? Probably nothing much positive. That's pretty much the method you've used to conclude an M8 is a paper-weight and maybe an M9's not worth the trip.

I think your choice of assessment method is predisposing your answer.

Re the noise comment, I'm assuming you don't have much of a digital processing background, so correct me on this if I've got it wrong. There are a lot of ways to tame the noise you find objectionable (Jaap posted a great thread awhile ago on a LR noise-reduction technique, for example). Prints from M8 files shot above iso 640 can look very good, imho, if exposed and processed capably.

That said, I'd upgrade to an M9 in heartbeat if I had the cash to burn. I don't, so I print mid-sized and work with what I have.
 
Last edited:
My own .02....

I shoot a D700 and an M6. I can't justify a business model that justifies spending triple what the D700 cost for the same or similar results (nice, smooth digital files). If the M9 magically shot better pictures than I could make with a D700, I'd be all in. If I spent $7000 on an M9, only to return home and see files I could have made with a camera at a third the price, I'd be utterly disappointed.

The M6 and b&w film produces a result that is unique to digital cameras. That's why I like it so much.

Also, at $7k for a camera body that wasn't weather-sealed and didn't spend it's life in a studio...well again, just another crippling feature. Would you use an M9 if it was sprinkling out? How about at the beach or lake, where water mist blows?

I'm not a huge fan of developing film, and I have very little patience for scanning film...however, Leica M's built their reputations on simple, reliable cameras which could go anywhere. The M9, at the end of the day, is an extremely expensive digital camera whose technology will be outdated in the next upgrade cycle, and won't have the reliability M users always depended on.

Ask yourself (rhetorically)...are you happy you spent $5 grand on an original M8? It was the greatest thing since sliced bread upon it's introduction.

If you have money to burn (and that's not a judgment...good for you) then by all means get an exciting M9. You'll have man-jewelry to make any camera label-watcher green with envy. If you don't have money to burn, back your D700 up with a Fuji X100. It's small, lightweight, affordable, and specs out like a D300S with a Nikkor 35/2 strapped to the front.

---Dave.
 
David_Manning said:
My own .02....

I shoot a D700 and an M6. I can't justify a business model that justifies spending triple what the D700 cost for the same or similar results (nice, smooth digital files). If the M9 magically shot better pictures than I could make with a D700, I'd be all in. If I spent $7000 on an M9, only to return home and see files I could have made with a camera at a third the price, I'd be utterly disappointed.

The M6 and b&w film produces a result that is unique to digital cameras. That's why I like it so much.

Also, at $7k for a camera body that wasn't weather-sealed and didn't spend it's life in a studio...well again, just another crippling feature. Would you use an M9 if it was sprinkling out? How about at the beach or lake, where water mist blows?

I'm not a huge fan of developing film, and I have very little patience for scanning film...however, Leica M's built their reputations on simple, reliable cameras which could go anywhere. The M9, at the end of the day, is an extremely expensive digital camera whose technology will be outdated in the next upgrade cycle, and won't have the reliability M users always depended on.

Ask yourself (rhetorically)...are you happy you spent $5 grand on an original M8? It was the greatest thing since sliced bread upon it's introduction.

If you have money to burn (and that's not a judgment...good for you) then by all means get an exciting M9. You'll have man-jewelry to make any camera label-watcher green with envy. If you don't have money to burn, back your D700 up with a Fuji X100. It's small, lightweight, affordable, and specs out like a D300S with a Nikkor 35/2 strapped to the front.

---Dave.
Click to expand...

Dear Dave,

Highlight 1: Well, yes, I do. Have done since I got it 15 months ago.

Highlight 2: How will it be outdated? What is an M10 going to do that the M9 doesn't? Higher ISO, probably: I can live without that. Otherwise I have a full-frame camera that gives me film-quality results.

Highlight 3: Everyone knew the M8 was a stopgap before FF. Nobody (even inside Leica, to begin with) was quite sure how long for. Three years' use from the M8 before the M9 came along, with the choice of selling the M8 for maybe $2K or keeping it as a backup -- yes, that sounds like reasonable value to me.

Highlight 4: An odd assumption that M9 buyers have money to burn. I don't. It's just that I really can't imagine working with a lumpy, semi-pro DSLR and an admittedly rather nice point-and-shoot when I could use an M9 instead, with an M8 (despite its faults) as a backup.

You say you can't think of a 'business model' that justifies an M9. What is your business? I earn a (modest) living doing what I love doing, and I'd be a fool to use cameras other than the ones I want to use, if I can possibly afford the ones that make me happier.

Cheers,

R.
 
M8.2 Stopgap

M8.2 Stopgap

Mint M8.2 at Tamarkin $3900 with LOTS of noise above 640. Nikon D7000 with usable ISO at 3200 and perhaps 6400 $1200. And guess which one is weather sealed. Don't like the size of the D7000 and not a big fan of zoom lenses which is why I was willing to give the M8.2 a shot.

The comment about the $6000 paperweight is not mine. I am merely quoting a friend who was both "Magazine Photographer of the Year" and "Newspaper Photographer of the Year" when National Geographic sent him an M8 to use for free. As I said in the original post, he is happy with the M9. And as I said, I wanted to like the M8.2 but for the money-no way. As someone else said, it was a stopgap until the M9.

If the M8.2 floats your boat, go for it but it is not for me. I may get the M9, have not decided.
 
I've decided to get an M9- but am selling some equipment for it.

In my case, I have way more cameras and lenses than is reasonable. I'm glad they are finding their way to people that use them. I will still have way too many cameras and lenses after selling enough for an M9.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
I've decided to get an M9- but am selling some equipment for it.

In my case, I have way more cameras and lenses than is reasonable. I'm glad they are finding their way to people that use them. I will still have way too many cameras and lenses after selling enough for an M9.
Click to expand...

i'll trade you an rd1 for your m8...:angel:
 
I made the switch

I made the switch

I am not a professional, but photography has been a life long hobby. Once the M9 was available I sold on eBay all but one Nikon digital camera and one lens and purchased the M9 and the 35 f/2 lens. Giving up the D700 and a lot of great Nikon glass was hard, but I have no regrets. What I got in exchange was a smaller, lighter and much less complex camera with excellent IQ and a great lens system. It is more fun to use, easier to carry and I am in total control. My remaining Nikon gear takes care of my macro and telephoto needs. I would do it again. BTW I also sold my backpack and now use a very small shoulder bag to carry my camera, 3-lenses and accessories 🙂
Good luck, I know you will enjoy the M9
Bob
 
Joe Vitessa said:
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.
Click to expand...

Cheap developing, but the equation needs to account for the cost of film. Assuming a $5 roll of film, 8,333 rolls is actually about 1200 rolls. I shoot slides, so i figure an M9 would pay for itself before 300 rolls.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
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.
Click to expand...

Good News for Kodak DC-50 users.

I found my Photo-enhancer 2.1 floppy disks, and they are still readable. Went ahead and copied them, plus installed it on the XP machine. Works fine. I also have the MAC Floppies, but I cannot verify that they are good.

So- if those images are locked onto that PCMCIA card, you are in luck.
 
Trooper said:
Cheap developing, but the equation needs to account for the cost of film. Assuming a $5 roll of film, 8,333 rolls is actually about 1200 rolls. I shoot slides, so i figure an M9 would pay for itself before 300 rolls.
Click to expand...

I do my own E6 and (used to) shoot a lot of Elite Chrome 100. This means that film and processing cost about £5/roll. Allow another £2 (at the outside) for GePe mounts (the best). At £4850 for an M9 that's 700 rolls.

What's a pro lab charge nowadays, if you can find one? And how much are the fancier slide films? You'd be lucky to get away with £10/roll processed($16.50); £15 is quite likely ($23); and £20 ($33) is not impossible. That's 485 rolls, 325 rolls and 245 rolls respectively: quite a lot of film, but at an average of a roll a week (a very modest amount, I'd guess) it's 13 years for 700; just over 9 years for 485; rather over 6 years for 325; and well under 5 years for 245.

If I didn't think my M9 would give me at least 10 years, and quite probably 20, I wouldn't have bought it. As it is, as already noted, I've shot maybe 10,000 pictures in 15 months (277 rolls equivalent) and even if I shoot twice as much digi as film that's around 140 rolls.

Of course you have to deduct the opportunity cost of the money invested in the M9, but at current interest rates you'd be lucky to see £150/$230 a year on £5000/$7000: 10-20 rolls, on the above calculations.

In other words, if you shoot lots of pictures, the only reasons to shoot film are (1) you prefer it or (2) the upfront investment in an M9 is too rich for your blood or (3) you're forever chopping and changing cameras and don't really know what you want anyway.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
In other words, if you shoot lots of pictures, the only reasons to shoot film are (1) you prefer it or (2) the upfront investment in an M9 is too rich for your blood or (3) you're forever chopping and changing cameras and don't really know what you want anyway.
Click to expand...

Roger, you accomplished in one post what I needed three to do...

Processing E-6 is about $24 per roll (120), plus the cost of film and driving to the store. I have recently found a more economical lab, but I don't shoot enough E-6 to make it worth my time at home. If it weren't for the advantages of a view camera, I'd be completely digital.

The largest print I ever would dream of making is an 11x14, but rarely to I exceed 8x10--my walls aren't that big. I don't know how many megapixels are required to rival film quality at those sizes, but I have been satisfied with 10MP on 8x10's. At some point, more megapixels won't help guys like me who will never make a billboard. If I can print an 11x14 today with an M9, then I can 10 years from now with the same camera that I have today.

For me, the initial investment in an M9 is too high. But, when they start popping up on the used market when the M10 makes them "obsolete" with TTL-matrix metering, autofocus, video mode, GPS tagging, and Bluetooth interface--I'll pounce on a used M9 that has all the features and functions I need.

If photography were my living, the opportunity to reduce my operating costs would be very enticing. Even as a hobbyist, the ability to continue for almost no operating costs is enticing. Pros certainly shoot enough to make the investment worth it. Maybe not an M9, but certainly digital. Since Vince seems to be comfortable with digital already, I think he is making a wise choice.
 
Good luck in your M9 purchase and use, Vince.
Having access to a Contaflex TLR and an M9 is a nice combo of classics and modern.
 
raid said:
Good luck in your M9 purchase and use, Vince.
Having access to a Contaflex TLR and an M9 is a nice combo of classics and modern.
Click to expand...

Thanks Raid -- that Contaflex is magical, though it does take some getting used to. Fortunately I'm not completely getting rid of all my film cameras, so if I do want to shoot film, I'll definitely still be able to do it. I'm just thinking that the M9 will be a nice bridge between my commercial and personal work, whereas up until this point they've been pretty well separate entities.
 
Hopefully I wasn't misunderstood...my post was purely my own opinion.

Do I think the M9 is great? Yeah, I like M-series rangefinders. Do I need one? No. Will it be as durable in the real world that I want--or need--to photograph? No. Is it as flexible as an SLR system? No. Would I miss scanning? No.

However, if you want one, get one. I'm all for being passionate about photography. If a new M9 motivates you to get out and shoot more, maybe it really is worth it. I'm unconvinced it'll magically make better pictures, though, but what the heck.

Sounds like you made up your mind. Congratulations! Just don't take it to the beach, on a boat, to the Antarctic, in a jungle, a desert, or near a hurricane (VERY tongue-in-cheek), and enjoy 😉

David.
 
NickTrop said:
If I was gonna blow "car money" on a camera, I'd go with the 40 megapixel Pentax digital medium format 645D, personally. MSRP $9,400 US.

Pentax unveils 40MP 645D medium format DSLR
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1003/10031002pentax645d.asp
"The camera will initially be available only in the Japanese market at a suggested retail price of ¥850,000 (~ US $9,400)"
Click to expand...

That's a good point. They're very different cameras, but as cool (and unaffordable) as I think the M9 is, I'd probably rather pay the extra ~$2,000 to get a digital MF camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom