hitx1
Member
that kills me! hahahahaha
and the ironic thing about all this is B&H Photo sent me an email today informing me to pre-order for an M9.
I don't know if I made myself clear other than to say it feels like we miss the point shooting a digital Leica. Its not bad however the files just feel so "digital." And like I said, nothing is wrong with that. But looking at digital all day for my work and all of a sudden I get the chance to see a piece of film...its like WOW! Maybe because its more of a personal side as its "personal" work.
And as far as my work is concerned, I have literally sold 99.9% of my business as digital. There is one film stock shot I've moved. ONE. Why? Because it just happen to be that day I had a film camera. For work, its makes no sense to spend money on film and processing and scanning when you can easily do all of this with a quick snap and download. I would loose money literally if I shot film. I couldn't make a deadline! Thats what makes digital king.
And its not so much that I am comparing Canon to Leica as they are completely different tools. I can't use a my Canon and a 400mm 2.8 to shoot a food shot (well I could but...) nor could I use a Leica to shoot a football game (ironically, I could as Winogrand...well you get the point!) but the point is the Leica digital seems to put the same file quality as a similar Canon digital...where as film Leica puts out a touch of magic. A touch of charm. A touch of that organic feeling I mentioned before. Its not all there with grain and all. And to me, photography is sometimes about what isn't there.
hitx1
Member
He says it well...there is no super advantage to shooting digital Leica as its the same as shooting Canon/Nikon/Sony etc... But as far as the tool is concerned, I could easily shoot a sensitive project with a small unobtrusive little M9 but it would cost a fortune. And there is no real advantage. No real punch to say "Hey, this digital file is sooo much better than a cheaper Canon 7D...sure its got "better bokeh" and can use a lens from the 1930 from Russia with a converter made in China and sold by the Japanese...but my cheap 7D and 50mm did the same thing."
I guess you could say the same with film but with film, the playing field was limited to those who knew how to work it. Steve McCurry HAD TO KNOW how to expose that Kodachrome back in the 1980s when he shot that Afghan kid with the green eyes. Now he can chimp. And funny enough, I once asked him why he didn't shoot Leica...he said it was too expensive at the time and he liked shooting slrs.
hitx1
Member
But I think the reason why is we have to nurture a shot from a Leica where we can just spray a scene with a Canon.
t.s.k.
Hooked on philm
This is perfect. Nuff said.
hitx1
Member
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
I sort of get the drift.
For me, if the M9 (or M8 for that matter as that's what I had and used for some time) offered me something different than what I currently "see" in RAW files from any of the "big boys" (i.e. in comparison to the Canon 5D series or the Nikon D700) then I'd be willing to look at it.
But unlike the OP, I don't earn the bulk of my $$$ from my photography. It does supplement my current income but I'm not solely dependent on it. Therefore, I feel, for my money, there's more value for the money in the big honking DSLR for those types of files versus the M9.
I, like the OP, will continue to use my M7 and Rolleiflex for my personal stuff. My reason for using film is strictly from a personal and nostalgic point of view.
If I were to be a full time pro, and I was able to use the M9 for work, I may consider it but I know, currently, there are things I can do with the D700 that I couldn't do with the M9 and vice versa. So, you have to expect some limitations depending on what system you go with for your work.
Cheers,
Dave
For me, if the M9 (or M8 for that matter as that's what I had and used for some time) offered me something different than what I currently "see" in RAW files from any of the "big boys" (i.e. in comparison to the Canon 5D series or the Nikon D700) then I'd be willing to look at it.
But unlike the OP, I don't earn the bulk of my $$$ from my photography. It does supplement my current income but I'm not solely dependent on it. Therefore, I feel, for my money, there's more value for the money in the big honking DSLR for those types of files versus the M9.
I, like the OP, will continue to use my M7 and Rolleiflex for my personal stuff. My reason for using film is strictly from a personal and nostalgic point of view.
If I were to be a full time pro, and I was able to use the M9 for work, I may consider it but I know, currently, there are things I can do with the D700 that I couldn't do with the M9 and vice versa. So, you have to expect some limitations depending on what system you go with for your work.
Cheers,
Dave
FS Vontz
Aspirer
Mate you've got some wonderful equipment, just go and use it. Time is too high a price to spend debating this stuff. And don't go looking for my threads, pointing out that I've done it, I'm well aware of my hypocrisy
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Any feedback from the OP's friend as to his comments abou the M6 he borrowed?
~Joe
~Joe
hitx1
Member
He hasn't sent me any feedback only cause he just dropped the film off at Costco. He wanted to shoot and feel what a true wide angle would do.
He's a Leicaman, he purchased the M8 and an Asph or two as his hobby. I can't blame him cause he can afford it.
He's a Leicaman, he purchased the M8 and an Asph or two as his hobby. I can't blame him cause he can afford it.
dseelig
David
Leica Canon Nikon
Leica Canon Nikon
To me the m9 is a vastly diff tool then the canon and nikon,s I do have a have a fairly complete canon system i1d mk 11 and 5d and 7d and soon a 1d mk 1v . For my personal work a rangefinder works better for me . I cannot or do not want to carry a canon system with a 24 35 59 and 85 f1.2 or f1.4 lenses around for hour's like I would with a leica system. Also I get more relaxed people with a leica then a dslr.
David PS I do wish the bodies though were made in the orient and half the price
Leica Canon Nikon
To me the m9 is a vastly diff tool then the canon and nikon,s I do have a have a fairly complete canon system i1d mk 11 and 5d and 7d and soon a 1d mk 1v . For my personal work a rangefinder works better for me . I cannot or do not want to carry a canon system with a 24 35 59 and 85 f1.2 or f1.4 lenses around for hour's like I would with a leica system. Also I get more relaxed people with a leica then a dslr.
David PS I do wish the bodies though were made in the orient and half the price
greggebhardt
Well-known
I agree 100%
Too much time spent talking about it and not enough time spent using it!:bang:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
What can the M9 do that the D700 can't Dave ... I mean realistically and not based on usage issues like weight and size etc?
The only tangible thing I can think of is use Leica rangefinder glass from back whenever up until current production!
M4-I-Love
Established
If only Leica took the Minox M3 and expand its size but not its price ... (sigh)
hitx1
Member
Keith, there is very little different with the files as I have found. I mean Canon/Nikon advancement in low light makes the Leica file a bit behind the times. I shot a Canon Mark IV recently and was stunned at the level of detail recorded at 5000 iso. And Nikon can top it. I got detail from a near black sky! It wasn't a pretty picture but it amazing nonetheless. So to answer your question, the M9 probably can do very little over a D700.
However, as I have stated I am a pro, I've wished I had a small, quiet, and high level digital file camera to snap away at delicate times. And thats why I got the Leica in the first place.
I once shot a documentary on a Air Force pilot who was shot down in Vietnam and remains were found and turned over to the wife like 35 years later. Having that hunk 'o glass (Canon 24mm-70mm 2.8) crammed onto a Mark II rattling away really kills the moment.
I got the job done and frankly it was amazing story. But if I had had an M9, a 35mm and 90mm at hand. I could have captured images a bit more on the sly. But I would have had trouble focusing and metering, etc...the Canons let me composefocusmeterandsnap in nanoseconds. So again, the 700D is a better tool for much of what I would shoot. And the M6 might stay a M6 cause its a tool for a different day.
But I think the real truth of the matter is Leica is a religion, a cult, a following. How then to explain a 30 year camera selling for the price of a new prosumer digital? Why do you think this forum is filled with nuts posting things like show us your M6 or other funny ones like black or chrome? Along with my comment above, my reasoning for a Leica was to reach out to my inner Winogrand and to be honest, I hated it. But I got used to the size and weight and actually prefer to shoot with it over a small digital. Its not very convenient and that Nikon F4 with a 35mm would have been a more suitable camera if anything.
And funny enough, no one ever talks to me when I am armed to gills carrying 50lbs of cameras and lenses but get that one little black box around your next...and all of a sudden, "oh, he's a real photographer..."
Yeah...right.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I've decided that having the option of using my M8 or D700 when deliberately choosing to go with digital ... is a bit like heading of to a fight and deciding between a gun or a knife!
Then of course there's the option of an M film body with a roll of Tri-X loaded ... maybe that's the garotte?
alan davus
Well-known
I'm in that happy position also of photography being only a hobby. I can buy and use that which gives me pleasure. Up until now I've never owned a digital camera, not through any prejudice against the medium, but the cameras themselves just don't do anything for me in the same way that the Nikons that followed the F3 never appealled. Never bought any of the autofocus Nikons, in fact after my FA and Fe2 the next new camera I bought was a Hexar RF closely followed by an M6. I few months ago when the Pen came out I thought this might be it so I went to a demo night at a store here in Adelaide and walked out, went home, looked at my M6 and sighed. The only digital camera out there I really want is the M9 but at $A8500 I keep thinking, why not just bite the bullet like Keith and get a D700 for $A2500. But every time I go to buy one, pick it up with a great lump of glass on the front and contemplate lugging it around for the next number of years, I put it back on the shelf leave the shop and head off to shoot my M6. So it's going to have to be the M9 or nothing. And it's going to be nothing for a while because my accountant told me yesterday I'm up for another $10,000 in tax for last financial year. Sighhh!!
hitx1
Member
ozzies have the mean ol' tax man, huh? if those idiots in our congress pass this mandatory health care (obamacare), my days of buying cameras might be up! they're gonna tax the hell out of us.
maddoc
... likes film again.
That`s exactly the reason why I stick with my outdated M Leicas, flawed pre-ASPH lenses and grainy Tri-X. I don`t like robotic but then I am not a pro and don`t have to meet deadlines.
I don`t like robotic but then I am not a pro and don`t have to meet deadlines.
denmark.yuzon
Streetographer
this saying never gets old:
Digital for the money, Film for the heart.
I am not a pro. Photography is also just a hobby of mine. I bought my first dSLR last christmas, a used d40. Just because I need one for those family gatherings, vacations, and/or for fun shoots that needs instant gratification. I dont own an M, but I would like to in the future, but I settled with a humble Konica Auto S2, and it really made me not want a leica at this point.
But if you can really afford both, then by all means, get that $7000 camera and be happy. you wont be taking it [money] to the grave anyway.
Digital for the money, Film for the heart.
I am not a pro. Photography is also just a hobby of mine. I bought my first dSLR last christmas, a used d40. Just because I need one for those family gatherings, vacations, and/or for fun shoots that needs instant gratification. I dont own an M, but I would like to in the future, but I settled with a humble Konica Auto S2, and it really made me not want a leica at this point.
But if you can really afford both, then by all means, get that $7000 camera and be happy. you wont be taking it [money] to the grave anyway.
flyalf
Well-known
I can sort of understand this reasoning and I know it's why the M8 will probably remain with me in spite of it's short comings .... BUT!
After owning a D700 for all of twenty four hours (which means I'm now an experienced FF DSLR user
All this hi tech hoopla doesn't have to be taken on board IMO ... the camera can still be used in a basic mode that relies totally on user input. Sophisticated as the Nikon is if I choose I can still focus it manually, select my shutter speed and aperture manually, choose my ISO setting to suit the situation and take the shot as I would with any other manual camera M8 included ... and the end product, good or bad, will be a result of my own judgement and experience, not the camera's!
I can do all this without going anywhere near all that complexity that leaps into view as soon as I press that menu button on the back of the camera.
I am sorry to say that I disagree with you
. I used a D700 one year, and then switched to a RD-1, and now to a M9. The D700 ads a lot more complexity (as well as choices) that you cannot choose to ignore. Photography with the RD-1 is like breathing without a gas mask - the gas mask being a D700