hitx1
Member
Yes, $7000 is a load of dough as that is roughly the current cost, if available, the Leica M9. Funny, all those zeros won't cover all of the cost for a new Canon 1Ds Mark IV as that will probably run a close to $8k in the US, and sadly, most of us can't afford either one.
Here's my story, a friend and I swapped cameras for a few days, my M6 for his M8. Many people are still quiet smitten with their M8s for good reason. I went out shooting today and captured roughly 200 frames or so (around five rolls of film or more) of different lighting, situations, and subjects.
I wasn't surprised at the results as I kinda knew what to expect with reviews and all but what struck me the most about the M8 was the workflow and output as the digital files seem to be no different than those from Canon, Nikon or Sony.
The exposures all look roughly the same...flat, evenly exposed with the odd highlight overexposed but very little blockage in the shadows. The files all had an odd digital feel where everything has gone from grain (round dots) to pixelation (fuzzy squares) but the resolution is really really nice. I am looking at a snap blown up to 200% in PS and its amazing how the file (shot with a 28mm Elmarit F2.8 ASPH lens) looks roughly the same as my Canon 1Ds Mark II shot with a 24-70mm F2.8 zoom. Of course all these files look immensely better than Kodak Gold 100 scanned with a Nikon 8000.
I don't care to argue or hear about how Provia or Ortho film etc... can out resolve such and such according to Putz or whomever expert from this chart etc...there is always ways to argue a point, and frankly that isn't my point. I really found there to be very little difference from the digital files from Leica and Canon, Nikon and Sony. I've shot all three and I can't see how Leica has separated itself from the pack. And maybe that is a good thing.
But then again, maybe its not.
I've been shooting so much film for my personal work that its almost so romantic to see that obnoxious grain from Fujicolor 400 or a bit of over saturation from Ektar 100. Its nice to see how film can't resolve all the detail in a shadow allowing an image to have depth. Film has an organic and I might dare say a romantic quality no digital can reproduce unless you take a few steps in PS to degrade your file to make it more film-like...and isn't that what we are all trying to accomplish? Trying to get that "film feeling?'
I think the ethic of shooting a Leica film body is the mystery of what you might not be able to capture, whether its the lack of resolution of film, quickly focusing a lens. Like shooting a Holga, you never know what you are going to get with film and a 35mm Summilux shot at 1.4. With digital, you always know exactly as digital is robotic. You know you'll always end up with a near perfect image from digital.
There is a certain archetype, a Capaesque, a Winograndesque, a McCurryesque to running that film at a lab, taking a loupe and looking at the cellulose. The smell of stop bath, the feel of developer on your fingers, that red light. The anxiety of waiting to know what your film will deliver. Its religious like.
I won't give up film just yet nor will I give up the idea of putting aside those backbreaker Canon digitals for a M9. The files of the M9/M8.2 are so much like the current digital product that I can't clearly see a need to switch. Leica is trying to run with the big boys of digital but didn't attach all the bells and whistles (for obvious reasons) as they say. Loads of predictions have said Leica will crash if a Voigtlander or Olympus (or even Canon/Nikon) comes out with a digital rangefinder with an M mount. I'd welcome it as it would probably be cheaper!
After my day with an M8.2, I am seriously looking at purchasing another M6 or 4 or 5 just for the hell of it. I can always shoot digital with my Canons and I'll truly always get better resolution, quality, feel, and production immediately. Autofocus, AV, multi ISO at the tip of my fingertips...I mean digital takes away all the magic! At times, you need a bit of magic when you pop that roll of film in.
I'll shoot some more with the M8 as I have it for a few more days and I'll be happy with the files...but I already miss that humming scanner and that obnoxious grain.
Here's my story, a friend and I swapped cameras for a few days, my M6 for his M8. Many people are still quiet smitten with their M8s for good reason. I went out shooting today and captured roughly 200 frames or so (around five rolls of film or more) of different lighting, situations, and subjects.
I wasn't surprised at the results as I kinda knew what to expect with reviews and all but what struck me the most about the M8 was the workflow and output as the digital files seem to be no different than those from Canon, Nikon or Sony.
The exposures all look roughly the same...flat, evenly exposed with the odd highlight overexposed but very little blockage in the shadows. The files all had an odd digital feel where everything has gone from grain (round dots) to pixelation (fuzzy squares) but the resolution is really really nice. I am looking at a snap blown up to 200% in PS and its amazing how the file (shot with a 28mm Elmarit F2.8 ASPH lens) looks roughly the same as my Canon 1Ds Mark II shot with a 24-70mm F2.8 zoom. Of course all these files look immensely better than Kodak Gold 100 scanned with a Nikon 8000.
I don't care to argue or hear about how Provia or Ortho film etc... can out resolve such and such according to Putz or whomever expert from this chart etc...there is always ways to argue a point, and frankly that isn't my point. I really found there to be very little difference from the digital files from Leica and Canon, Nikon and Sony. I've shot all three and I can't see how Leica has separated itself from the pack. And maybe that is a good thing.
But then again, maybe its not.
I've been shooting so much film for my personal work that its almost so romantic to see that obnoxious grain from Fujicolor 400 or a bit of over saturation from Ektar 100. Its nice to see how film can't resolve all the detail in a shadow allowing an image to have depth. Film has an organic and I might dare say a romantic quality no digital can reproduce unless you take a few steps in PS to degrade your file to make it more film-like...and isn't that what we are all trying to accomplish? Trying to get that "film feeling?'
I think the ethic of shooting a Leica film body is the mystery of what you might not be able to capture, whether its the lack of resolution of film, quickly focusing a lens. Like shooting a Holga, you never know what you are going to get with film and a 35mm Summilux shot at 1.4. With digital, you always know exactly as digital is robotic. You know you'll always end up with a near perfect image from digital.
There is a certain archetype, a Capaesque, a Winograndesque, a McCurryesque to running that film at a lab, taking a loupe and looking at the cellulose. The smell of stop bath, the feel of developer on your fingers, that red light. The anxiety of waiting to know what your film will deliver. Its religious like.
I won't give up film just yet nor will I give up the idea of putting aside those backbreaker Canon digitals for a M9. The files of the M9/M8.2 are so much like the current digital product that I can't clearly see a need to switch. Leica is trying to run with the big boys of digital but didn't attach all the bells and whistles (for obvious reasons) as they say. Loads of predictions have said Leica will crash if a Voigtlander or Olympus (or even Canon/Nikon) comes out with a digital rangefinder with an M mount. I'd welcome it as it would probably be cheaper!
After my day with an M8.2, I am seriously looking at purchasing another M6 or 4 or 5 just for the hell of it. I can always shoot digital with my Canons and I'll truly always get better resolution, quality, feel, and production immediately. Autofocus, AV, multi ISO at the tip of my fingertips...I mean digital takes away all the magic! At times, you need a bit of magic when you pop that roll of film in.
I'll shoot some more with the M8 as I have it for a few more days and I'll be happy with the files...but I already miss that humming scanner and that obnoxious grain.
Last edited:
gavinlg
Veteran
I enjoyed reading that, but just want to warn you that you're probably going to get smattered with angry comments from the anti-anti-digital people on this forum. They get very personally offended stuff such as this.
To reply to your post, it's the exact reason I like using film AND digital too. Film makes me feel nostalgic looking back through photos. When I go on a holiday or a roadtrip with friends, I like using film because it captures the feel better than digital does for me. However for when I need guaranteed results I bust out my 5d, and the pictures can really shine if you get it all right. Film makes happy mistakes, digital makes yucky mistakes. Both are amazing.
To reply to your post, it's the exact reason I like using film AND digital too. Film makes me feel nostalgic looking back through photos. When I go on a holiday or a roadtrip with friends, I like using film because it captures the feel better than digital does for me. However for when I need guaranteed results I bust out my 5d, and the pictures can really shine if you get it all right. Film makes happy mistakes, digital makes yucky mistakes. Both are amazing.
gavinlg
Veteran
I'll also just quickly say that the simplicity of the m8/m9 is the best thing about it. Better than having no AA filter, better than the lenses, maybe on par with it's small overall size. I had a nikon d300 for a while - great camera, but the amount of options in the menus literally made my brain hurt. The leica's being so simple is a big breath of fresh air for me.
Kozhe
Well-known
I don´t see the point to get an M8 or M9 if image quality and performance is what you´re looking for. A D90 does everything a M8 does "technically", and a lot more.
The point I guess is whether a rangefinder fits your shooting style, and you like the digital way. Then the digital leicas might be for you. I hate the M8 for its poor performance compared to a good dslr, but I feel great with its size and the way it handles, and that´s why I paid a lot for mine instead of paying half for a Nikon or Canon with better performance.
Would you compare your M6 against a Nikon F6? I won´t say mine is "better" than a Nikon F, it´s just different. Why don´t we play this same game on digital?
The point I guess is whether a rangefinder fits your shooting style, and you like the digital way. Then the digital leicas might be for you. I hate the M8 for its poor performance compared to a good dslr, but I feel great with its size and the way it handles, and that´s why I paid a lot for mine instead of paying half for a Nikon or Canon with better performance.
Would you compare your M6 against a Nikon F6? I won´t say mine is "better" than a Nikon F, it´s just different. Why don´t we play this same game on digital?
gavinlg
Veteran
Totally understand but:
Put a roll of 100 reala in an m6 and put another roll of 100 reala in an f6, Images from both will be similar. Even something like an XA compared with an f6 - images will be similar.
Digital's a little different because the sensors make up a large amount of a cameras output's "look" much like different films will for a film camera. I've had a 5d, a d300, an e-3, an e-p1 and a couple of older DSLRs and they all make quite different images.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
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
) I have a slightly different slant on this theory about the over complexity of multi function menu within menu cameras!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.
greggebhardt
Well-known
For me film is no longer an option. I did it for 35 years and it simply is no longer a consideration.
The M9 was a no brainer as my lenses are no longer cropped.
Sure digital is different but it is so much more versatile that, well read the first line of my post!
The M9 was a no brainer as my lenses are no longer cropped.
Sure digital is different but it is so much more versatile that, well read the first line of my post!
hitx1
Member
I make my full salary off my eyes, so all my cameras are Canon professional bodies. I doubt I could rely solely on film or a digi Leica, as working as a professional is tough. Yet, a local camera store is selling a used Nikon F4 minus motor drive for less than $200 US. I've been dreaming of a a Nikon and film!
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
hitx1, that was a really interesting post. I enjoyed reading it.
gavinlg
Veteran
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.
Yeah thats the other side of it - it's easy just to put it in M mode and use it like a film camera.
Kozhe
Well-known
Well, you´ll have different lenses on the M6, F6 or XA so the image won´t be really the same
Nah, really, there´s no sense in a slr vs rangefinder comparison. Enjoy both and have fun!
Anyway, not really sure what we´re talking about here. Are we complaining about Leica prices? Sure, they are f expensive. Is a Canon 5d better than a Leica M9? For what and for who?
alecgold
Established
@hitx1, nice balanced opinion/use for the M6 and the Canon.
To me the big advantage of the M's, be it digital or film, is that you can have it with you. All the time. A guy into knife fighting said in a discussion on the best knife: "the best knife for fighting is the one in your hand".
For me, for my (recreational) uses, I don't need the most versatile camera on earth, with everything possible to adjust. It's useless if I don't have it with me.
Even the Canon 350d I used for some time is to big to have it day and night with you.
I always have a messenger with me for work, laptop, internet-dongle, some papers, adapter etc. And I want to be able to stuff a camera in there as well.
Just one question. All this versatility on a dSLR, I never seem to be able to get exactly what I want from it. I fiddle and tweak etc. but it just doesn't seem to do what I want.
With my M8 I just don't expect it to do that, there is very little to tweak and fiddle with. You put the iso on a value and then you walk around, change focal point, change shutter times, change aperture, but those three are basically all I can fiddle with.
Are other people experiencing this as well? Or perhaps the opposite, the are annoyed by the lack of fiddle-things on an M?
To me the big advantage of the M's, be it digital or film, is that you can have it with you. All the time. A guy into knife fighting said in a discussion on the best knife: "the best knife for fighting is the one in your hand".
For me, for my (recreational) uses, I don't need the most versatile camera on earth, with everything possible to adjust. It's useless if I don't have it with me.
Even the Canon 350d I used for some time is to big to have it day and night with you.
I always have a messenger with me for work, laptop, internet-dongle, some papers, adapter etc. And I want to be able to stuff a camera in there as well.
Just one question. All this versatility on a dSLR, I never seem to be able to get exactly what I want from it. I fiddle and tweak etc. but it just doesn't seem to do what I want.
With my M8 I just don't expect it to do that, there is very little to tweak and fiddle with. You put the iso on a value and then you walk around, change focal point, change shutter times, change aperture, but those three are basically all I can fiddle with.
Are other people experiencing this as well? Or perhaps the opposite, the are annoyed by the lack of fiddle-things on an M?
Shoot what you like, as long as you like what you shoot.
I've used film for 45 years and digital for almost 30 years. One has not replaced the other in my life.
But the M8 makes it much easier to shim Russian lenses for use on a Leica.
I've used film for 45 years and digital for almost 30 years. One has not replaced the other in my life.
But the M8 makes it much easier to shim Russian lenses for use on a Leica.
downstairs
downstairs
... Together with a decent enlarger, an easel, some tanks and trays and darkroom plumming pehaps. That could add up to $7000.
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I think my M8 will make me appreciate my D700 and vice versa ... I've come to the conclusion that in a digital world they compliment each other perfectly.
As they say ... 'I'm a happy camper!'
victoriapio
Well-known
Because I don't have to, I will never use film again
But the end result - the most important result, the ONLY result, the result that counts, the results that your career depends on - THE PHOTOGRAPH - doesn't give a rat's ass whether you shoot digital or film.
But the end result - the most important result, the ONLY result, the result that counts, the results that your career depends on - THE PHOTOGRAPH - doesn't give a rat's ass whether you shoot digital or film.
And that is the difference between a Pro and an Amateur. My career does not depend on what I photograph. Having fun with photography depends on how much I like what I shoot and what I shoot with. And occasionally going meterless just to prove to myself that I have not "lost it".
I would hate to be a Pro Photographer.
I would hate to be a Pro Photographer.
sig
Well-known
So the $7000 question is: Why do you want to buy 4 or 5 more M6s?
Anyways, use what ever camera (or any other equipment) that makes you happy. There is no need to defend your self, at least as long as you do not break any laws (however I am interested in the reasoning behind the massive numbers of M6 cameras).
Anyways, use what ever camera (or any other equipment) that makes you happy. There is no need to defend your self, at least as long as you do not break any laws (however I am interested in the reasoning behind the massive numbers of M6 cameras).
tj01
Well-known
Thank God for my day job , I can continue to shoot mediocre photos of bus stops and stray dogs
Ben Z
Veteran
I have no objection to shooting film, really I don't. But after the last decent local lab closed a couple years ago, I'd have to either mail it off (expensive) or develop it myself (something I detested even before there was such a thing as digital). Then I'd end up scanning it (aka, taking a digital photograph of the negative with a desktop digital camera) and be right back to post-processing (something else I detest, but at least with digital I don't need to scan anything first). So although film is far from dead in the world, for me it died.
As to the other part of the OP's essay, I have to agree that after 2 1/2 years with an M8, I still don't see any image quality advantage whatsoever vs my Canon 20D, let alone the 5D-mark1. If anything, the Canon's both have superior noise control at higher ISO's, and large-fine JPG's that are 99% as good as RAW (something that can't be said of the M8). Neither of my Canon's show a trace of IR color cast either (something I still did not find to be completely fixed with the M9 I used for an afternoon, BTW). I know this is an unpopular opinon to mention on a Leica-related forum, and some people will no doubt chime in to say that my Canon files look plasticky, mushy, whatever, and that if I can't see it I'm just a lousy judge of image quality. So be it.
The bottom line for me is that an M8 with several lenses sufficient for my travel needs fits in a compact little bag that is comfortable to carry around while walking, riding busses and subways, eating in restaurants etc. That was the entire reason I began to use a Leica in the first place vs an SLR, and remains so today. Unfortunately I'm not travelling that much these days mostly oweing to the unfavorable currency rate, so as a result my M8 sits more than it shoots. And that is a main reason I'm not even considering paying retail for a new M9, only to watch it drop to half it's value sitting in a closet as the M8 has done. Hopefully, by the time my M8 develops some kind of problem that renders it inoperable or uneconomical to repair, there will be M9's as demos for a fraction of their current new cost (especially if an M10 is out by then). Otherwise, I may end up just picking up a Canon G-whatever for travel. There comes a point where each person hits his maximum spending limit on hobby equipment, and for me the M9 is past that limit.
As to the other part of the OP's essay, I have to agree that after 2 1/2 years with an M8, I still don't see any image quality advantage whatsoever vs my Canon 20D, let alone the 5D-mark1. If anything, the Canon's both have superior noise control at higher ISO's, and large-fine JPG's that are 99% as good as RAW (something that can't be said of the M8). Neither of my Canon's show a trace of IR color cast either (something I still did not find to be completely fixed with the M9 I used for an afternoon, BTW). I know this is an unpopular opinon to mention on a Leica-related forum, and some people will no doubt chime in to say that my Canon files look plasticky, mushy, whatever, and that if I can't see it I'm just a lousy judge of image quality. So be it.
The bottom line for me is that an M8 with several lenses sufficient for my travel needs fits in a compact little bag that is comfortable to carry around while walking, riding busses and subways, eating in restaurants etc. That was the entire reason I began to use a Leica in the first place vs an SLR, and remains so today. Unfortunately I'm not travelling that much these days mostly oweing to the unfavorable currency rate, so as a result my M8 sits more than it shoots. And that is a main reason I'm not even considering paying retail for a new M9, only to watch it drop to half it's value sitting in a closet as the M8 has done. Hopefully, by the time my M8 develops some kind of problem that renders it inoperable or uneconomical to repair, there will be M9's as demos for a fraction of their current new cost (especially if an M10 is out by then). Otherwise, I may end up just picking up a Canon G-whatever for travel. There comes a point where each person hits his maximum spending limit on hobby equipment, and for me the M9 is past that limit.