The $7000 question, a different pov.

H

hitx1

Member
Local time
3:42 PM
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21
As I started the original $7000 post, I figured I'd pick up on a new vein with comments coming from my friend who borrowed the M6 and my feelings after three days of shooting.

My friend who had the M6 got his film and scans back from the lab and he stated he was very very happy. He loved the full frame, the means to cock the shutter, and the slowed down nature of the film camera, will push him to pick up a film body for full frame. He was very pleased with the roll of Fuji 400 and the scans on the DVD. He said he was starting to search the market for a reasonable M6 in good condition to compliment his M8.

As he is a professional amateur, he knows and likes good equipment and lenses. He was very happy with the quality of the film as he is very happy with the quality of the files from the M8...BUT...he cannot justify the $7000 cost for a full framed M9. He will pick up a M6 and wait a year or two until the M9 is halfed in price due to digital rot. But who knows as so many professional amateurs loose their patience and the watchful eyes of stingy wives.

As for ME, I am beginning to like the easy workflow of the M8. The fact I can shoot 100 frames and download instantly makes me very comfortable...just like shooting my digital Canons. BUT, and here it comes, BUT, I feel as if I am looking at files from my Canon. So once again, whats the difference...aside from physical size, etc.?

The difference is the tool. And sure, I can take a Chinese made hammer (no offense to Chinese made hammers now...wait...are not all hammers made in China?..but back to my point...) and nail that Chinese made nail the same with a German made hammer. The output is the same and that is exactly the problem with digital. No matter what form of digital you use, its always the same. Is it because all the sensors are engineered by a factory in Japan which has a shogun lording over the production line? Probably...and if I am not mistaken, doesn't Sony control most of the production? Please correct me if I am wrong.

But I will say, the digital files from 160 ISO are beautiful. Really nice and very much in the vein of what Kodak Ektar 100, Gold, and other low speed films are doing. But to really look at the image, it all starts to resemble digital. That sense where perfection is all but perfect as digital has somewhat erased mistakes.

I'm just banging my head against a brick wall trying to find answers and justify to my business why or why not I should/should not get a Leica M9. I tell you I will most likely snap up a Canon 1ds Mark IV when it is unveiled. I swear by my 1ds Mark II as it produces files with such rich texture and tones, its absolutely amazing. I've shot mag covers of celebs, landscapes, food, journalism and whatnot with that camera. Its amazing. I tested a Mark III and didn't feel the files were that much different than its older brother but after shooting the 1d Mark IV, the full framer will be outstanding. If you've never shot with one, I would surely consider picking up a used cheap one. Its a fantastic camera.

For me what it comes down to is loosing control to the digital robot. I find shooting film and having no absolute control over the final output (maybe that means I do have absolute control) makes the magic of shooting the M6.

But as jamato8 said in the original post...

I also like the files from 160 to 2500. It is the most film like digital I have ever shot.

He most likely is correct but I wouldn't know because its an M8 I am shooting with.

Ah, to be behind the times...
 
I ordered my M9. Coming in end of march or early april..
I feel if it is worth 7k usd is quite subjective.
I find it quite economical to buy a M9.
The cost of 36k film exposure(1000 rolls) is around 7K usd.
I am not even considering good film like ektar 100, Neopan 1600 color which cost much more.

Even if you argue that one shoots more pictures with digital I feel the convenience covers up. The amount of time travelling to the place I develop and buy film weekly is enough time to get second girlfriend (kidding)...

If you photograph daily, from work, to school, waiting for the girl friend, walking the dog, waiting for the bus etc etc I think the M9 makes perfect sense. I'll cover the cost back in 2 yrs maybe 1.5. Of course dont be trigger happy...

Purely economic view.
 
It gets harder when the outputs you get from your dslr (in my case, a d700) outmatch the ones you get from the leica (m8)

I'm still struggling with this problem myself, and I can't even begin to imagine how it would feel if I was buying the M9, something so incredibly expensive yet not much better iq wise compared to far cheaper dslrs.
 
Seems like it is worth it to you. For me it was a tiny bit to much, so I got a "demo" M8. Never found a single sign of use on it and I'll have a ROI of less then 150 rolls of developed and printed Adox CHS 25 that I used in my M6.
And 5400 pictures... well, I've got the M8 now for a little bit more than a week and I'm on my 2500th picture. Oke, I've been testing, trying and snapping a lot, but I guess a good 200-300 pictures a week are likely.
In the end I will be printing much less and keep around 5 or 10 nice pictures a week and hope to get 2 or 3 good pictures a month that will get printed. Perhaps even more?! Who knows if my photographing skills improve a bit.
 
I loved the output of my 1dsmk2 but like the M9 files even better. Like you the 1dsnk2 files at low ISO were very "film like."My suggestion would be to keep both until you are convinced the M9 will work for you. And yes the M9 files are better than M8 files (noticeable for large printing, and certainly I would think noticeable for publication covers, etc.)

I sold all my DSLR equipment (used primarily for outdoor/nature/wildlife photography) to return to my roots of "life" photography with rangefinders. I do not miss them but would if I suddenly got a call to travel to remote Canada to document some rare animal. Since you have a DSLR system and the DRF system, you know the inherent limitations to both systems, and the advantages of each.

Your final images and in many cases your customers don't care whether you are using digital or silver, or what kind of equipment you use. That is your choice.
 
Acknowledging that forum discussions are a form of entertainment and amusement, I'm not saying anything against posting these questions. Nonetheless, I've been practicing my (non-photography) profession for more than 30 yrs, it's one where there are lots of equipment and system choices from many different manufacturers all claiming (with the "help" of paid endorsements from "top guys in the field") to give me better quality, more productivity, and competitive advantage. In other words, constantly wading through a muck of marketing hype. Yet I have never found myself unable to make decisions by myself, with confidence in my experience and ability to judge quality, assess my needs and those of my clients, and relate that to profitability. If I ever found me second-guessing myself, I would be very anxious about it.
 
Last edited:
Ben Z said:
Acknowledging that forum discussions are a form of entertainment and amusement, I'm not saying anything against posting these questions. Nonetheless, I've been practicing my (non-photography) profession for more than 30 yrs, it's one where there are lots of equipment and system choices from many different manufacturers all claiming (with the "help" of paid endorsements from "top guys in the field") to give me better quality, more productivity, and competitive advantage. In other words, constantly wading through a muck of marketing hype. Yet I have never found myself unable to make decisions by myself, with confidence in my experience and ability to judge quality, assess my needs and those of my clients, and relate that to profitability. If I ever found me second-guessing myself, I would be very anxious about it.
Click to expand...

Quite.

As for those who reckon they get better pics from their DSLRs, I wish them the very best of luck. I get better pics from my Leicas because I find them easier and more pleasant to use and carry.

Above the 'quality threshold' (the level at which the camera can take better pictures than you can), image quality doesn't matter very much.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Above the 'quality threshold' (the level at which the camera can take better pictures than you can), image quality doesn't matter very much.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Excellent point. This is the very reason I let my M8 go while keeping the RD1. I have a better keeper rate with the RD1 and it's more analog Workflow. The Files from the M8 were far superior but I did not get better results with it. In the end the RD1 joins my film RF's. It was me not the camera. Same story with my 5D's over the 1Ds cameras. The smaller form factor of the 5D being what meshes better for me in this case. It is a personal choice just as shoes that are comfortable or how much sugar goes in your tea.
 
Roger Hicks said:
As for those who reckon they get better pics from their DSLRs, I wish them the very best of luck. I get better pics from my Leicas because I find them easier and more pleasant to use and carry.
Click to expand...

I guess thats one way of looking at it. Personally I enjoy using both, and if faced with the same scenario I usually end up with similar photos from both the M8 and D700 (ZF lenses, split focusing screens and manual settings) However, IQ will always go to the the D700, and it's something that keeps me up at night when I think about buying an M9 (not like I could afford it, but we all have our fantasies) ;)
 
I have not yet moved to digital. I'm thinking about. One of the point I'm considering , probably due to my age, is that I feel more confortable to use and carry simple and easier and lightweight cameras. In fact on the film side the most used are my M, Bessa and FM2. So I'm leaning towards a digital RF (if fullframe I already have the lenses I need) but the money involved and the limitations (no close-up, no tele) leave me still many doubts. But for sure if going to digital I'll look for a small light affordable camera, which actually could be the M9. Unless that from tha micro 4/3 system something new (with optival VF) will arrive...
robert
 
Roger, I echo your statement.

Adding to that, I remember being in Iraq and running into a few Combat Camera soldiers, armed with DSLRs. All the guys would scatter, changing the mood of the moment, as they knew these were "Photographers". There I was with the M8 hanging at chest heigh, just ever so lightly sitting on my rifle magazine pouches (perfect place for it - never got in the way) and no one ever noticed me. Never, not once did anyone take me as intimidating. I was always able to shoot just as any other Joe would with his miniature point and shoot. There were a few people who asked me if the M8 was a 50 year old film camera. I'd say, "well, sorta".

I love that about the M cameras. With an M I was one of them and that mattered more than what any DSLR could "output".

There was a day when there was a 5D Mk II in my bag. Not anymore. After comparing side by side with images captured by the M8 - the effort and time that I had put into getting an M8 file "just right" over time, there was clearly nothing advantageous for me. And that's the point.... for me the Leica files "feel" right.

My girlfriend now has that 5D and is currently using it in Iraq. We spoke the other day and out of nowhere said that while she liked the Canon, she really missed using the M8. And this is coming from someone who is not a pro, farthest from anything we discuss on here as well.

Guess it's good to live in a rangefinder house.
 
The M8 is a fun camera to use. The M9 would be even better. For my use, the M8 is just fine. I'll give the M9 time to shake-out, and will probably pick one up in 2 or 3 years. I've had my share of "early adopter", and this camera would be for fun.

Now- if Leica would do a monochrome/IR version, I'm buying 2 of them. For work...

I have a couple of Tightsqeeze's M8 images hanging up at work. The Photographers at work were amazed that a still camera had taken them, thought they had to be stills from an HDTV type video camera. Told them, no they are from a Leica.
 
Last edited:
In the last day or so I have been reading about the "red edge" issue with the Leica M9. From what I have read it appears on the wide angle lenses, 24mm, and wider, especially with the CV lenses; although it has been reported up to the 35mm. Since no single person owns all the lenses and it is much too early for extensive test result (if any will ever be done) it is difficult to determine the extent of this problem. Leica has acknowledged the problem and is working on a firmware up date. My local camera store reported the problem to me but have not seen it. As they are a small operation they have not sold many cameras and to whom they have sold the camera to have not reported the problem.
So to comment on the question: Does a "red edge" issue impact on your decision to buy the camera?
As for me I agree with Roger in reference for the convenience of the smaller camera with high quality that provides me with the opportunity to take more photographs based on ease of operation and convenience.
 
Having used Telephoto lenses for a long time, Red Edge would be nothing new as chromatic aberration also produces it. I suspect the mechanism in the M9 is different, and can be corrected via post-processing. It would not affect me, I rarely shoot anything wider than 35mm.
 
tightsqueez said:
Roger, I echo your statement.

Adding to that, I remember being in Iraq and running into a few Combat Camera soldiers, armed with DSLRs. All the guys would scatter, changing the mood of the moment, as they knew these were "Photographers". There I was with the M8 hanging at chest heigh, just ever so lightly sitting on my rifle magazine pouches (perfect place for it - never got in the way) and no one ever noticed me. Never, not once did anyone take me as intimidating. I was always able to shoot just as any other Joe would with his miniature point and shoot. There were a few people who asked me if the M8 was a 50 year old film camera. I'd say, "well, sorta".

I love that about the M cameras. With an M I was one of them and that mattered more than what any DSLR could "output".

There was a day when there was a 5D Mk II in my bag. Not anymore. After comparing side by side with images captured by the M8 - the effort and time that I had put into getting an M8 file "just right" over time, there was clearly nothing advantageous for me. And that's the point.... for me the Leica files "feel" right.

My girlfriend now has that 5D and is currently using it in Iraq. We spoke the other day and out of nowhere said that while she liked the Canon, she really missed using the M8. And this is coming from someone who is not a pro, farthest from anything we discuss on here as well.

Guess it's good to live in a rangefinder house.
Click to expand...

tight squeez...sounds like you are in a tank.

very nice photostream. Will have to spend time reading and looking at your work. funny how some in the military are documenting the real life behind the gun without PAO officers controlling the info.

as far as it goes with you and the M8---and this is where digital makes SUCH a difference, is the fact that you can't run to Costco and drop off your film anytime you want. You might have a lab back at the PX but doubtful you'd spend free time worrying about that stuff. looking at some of your work makes me realize how stupid some of this conversation is...
 
I haven't seen any red edge with my 35 Summicron but then I haven't used the 35 too much yet.

I do love real wide at times and will get a 21 for the 9. I shoot up to 16 on my Canon stuff but for me a 21 would be wide enough for the Leica. I hope there won't be an issue because I don't like to do a bunch of post processing. I still love the smell of fixer, having done so much work in the dark room but I am not crazy about the smell of post processing. :^)
 
Last edited:
I started off getting an M3 with the intention of getting an M9 down the road. Three M bodies later and 5 lenses and I now have zero interest in the M9. Now in saying that, I also own two Nikon D3s with lenses from 8 mm-800 mm and feel that there is room in the world for both digital and film. The fact that my dealer still hasn't got an M9 to sell me might have something to do with me turning my back on the full-frame digital M. The dismal performance of the 21 F4 on the M9 I tested is another reason I have lost the lust for the M9.

On the other hand, my lust for Leica M film cameras is growing. At the moment, my M3 is away being serviced, which leaves me with M6 and M7 film bodies. Both are amazing cameras and have performed perfectly all winter in less than ideal conditions. Now loading the film M in the winter while not wearing gloves is a special experience that only a diehard film junkie would relish. Which I do :D.



Taken with Leica M7 and 50 1.0 Noctilux @ 1.0 on XP2.




Taken with Leica M6 and 50 1.0 Noctilux with B+W ND filter @ 1.0 with Ektar 100.
 
Last edited:
Robert, thanks - nothing more than some of our experiences over there.

hitx1, we had a fair share of tanks in our convoys and I loved having them around but no, thank goodness I wasn't in a tank. Although there is some debate whether a Hollywood movie is valid or accurate when it comes to war flicks, the Hurt Locker is what I did. But... not really the time or place for discussing such subject.

Believe it or not but you are most correct about digital, especially in how we implemented it in theatre. I have no doubt in my mind that the M8 saved lives, including my own. There were many times where I used it as a tool and the instant information a digital camera yields put us into the realm of "knowing". On the battlefield, this can sometimes make or break success.

You'd be surprised that there are a lot of soldiers who do in fact document their experiences in Iraq or Afghanistan. I guess it depends on the job that they are doing and what it entails; some have the luxury while others do not. I was fortunate to have that luxury where taking pictures was a very important part of my job.

The stuff coming out of Public Affairs is, well, it's very juvenile (at least the published work, as I know some of these Combat Camera soldiers do get their hands dirty). It's not that it's not distorted truth as it is a very polished, focused take that at best seems generic and androgynous. There's a reason for that, so I don't blame what gets filtered.

No need to hijack the thread anymore, apologies to those who differ with any of this.

My M9 will arrive this Tuesday and I am very confident that I will make most of the overhead cost. It's the images of one's life that matter, something I've been doing for a long time, regardless of what camera used.

If there's one thing I've learned, it's that you live only once. I've used up pretty much of all my nine lives already so the M9 will feel that much better...

Cheers!
 
While in Iraq I learned that I needed to photograph everything. All the time. I lost a friend early on and it was then that it hit me, I had only two photos of him, one was the official Navy photo I took in uniform. After that day, I was not only a photographer employed by the Navy, but a portrait shooter and documentarian of the lives of the folks I was there with. 'Cause there is never enough time to take all the photos we want and we'll always feel like we've come up short when someone is taken away too early.
So don't "spray & pray" but make good photos of the people you know and love living their normal lives 'cause the light and life is fleeting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom