The economics of the M9 (or m8?) compared to film

[elmer3.5]

Hi, i just can say:

The more i shoot my m9...

The more i love film and my m9,

Cheers!

 

[celluloidprop]

The M9 is the first digital to roughly equal its film predecessors, but it doesn't throw images any better than that little $400 CLE.

Er, the Canon 5D, 5D II, whatever their pro full-frame body is (1Ds?), and the Nikon D700/D3/D3s/D3X would disagree with you.

And, tbh, on a lot of objective measures it does 'throw images' better.

Film (size for size - so 35mm vs. APS-C/full-frame digital) can be extolled on a number of intangible qualities, but objective qualities make for a difficult argument.

 

[MIkhail]

1. Do any of you think that 35mm film still looks better than the shots on the M9? All up to iso 1600, and without doing your own film developing/printing etc.?

This question never made sence to me.
Thed dont look BETTER or WORSE. They are simply completely different. Digital has beter details, film has better draw, not as plastiky.

There is no point in trying to justify the purchase of M9 by counting the cost of development. The process of development, and better yet printing- that's a reward by itself, not jsut an expense.

If you are after "factual" photography, like reportage and such- digital cannot be beat. Art photo- film rules.

 

[Vincent.G]

This is long, sorry...

Recently I have been doing some small tests shooting and printing photos from different analog/digital cameras: 35mm film, MF film, GXR A12 mount, X100, GRDIII etc.
I printed all at a store (Kitamura in Shinjuku, Tokyo) and concluded the following:

1. The 35mm film prints look better when I give them the negatives, compared with scans (V700). I am quite disappointed about this scanner's 35mm scan performance. It's even visible on postcard size.

2. When I gave them the negatives, the brightness of the prints was always acceptable for me, while sometimes digital images I had edited were a slight bit too dark.

3. The X100 and GXR gave more detailed prints than film, though I liked the film structure. The GXR prints were nicer overall, but some BW X100 prints had a nice strong contrast. I had edited them like that though.

Now here is the thing: I have been trying to get into digital for my "street" work, but I always find myself coming back to film, and in particular my little CLE. I can just ROLL with that thing! But sometimes, when I look at some of my shots that I like, I can't help but think: "how great would that have looked on an M9!" (not that my shots are that amazing, but I like them!). Still, film has this nice contrast and structure to it.

Regardless, I am moving in with my GF, and we'll have a ridiculously small room. She has no problem with me filling that room up with stuff, but I really don't want to do that myself. I am also getting sick of scanning.

So the idea is: Ditch the huge scanner, buy no more 35mm film, sell all my camera's except for my Mamiya 6 and maybe the X100. Then get an M9, or possibly an M8. The high Iso sucks, but I prefer shooting during the day anyway. Now I will be able to work with just a laptop and camera. The occasional MF film I shoot I will have the store scanned and printed.

I often see the M9 here on this forum, compared to other digital cameras, but not so much against film rangefinders:

1. Do any of you think that 35mm film still looks better than the shots on the M9? All up to iso 1600, and without doing your own film developing/printing etc.?
2. Film shooters, what if you could trade in your shot rolls for 19MP scans at the same quality as an M9 (drumscan?), for the same cost as developing them? You'd lose the negatives though.
3. What if you could rent an M9 for 2 years for the same money that you would otherwise spend on buying, developing, and scanning film? After that period you could choose to do another year or two, or simply buy the camera if you pay the remainder of the original price. Could be the new or second hand price/camera.

I am sure you can see what I am getting at: Though an M9 is expensive compared to other digital cameras, it's not such a bad deal when you get a 2nd hand one as a 2 year plan and then sell it. Especially when the alternative is film.

Let's say I shoot 2 rolls a week. Sometimes a cheap BW film, sometimes a nice portra, on average ¥600 per roll ($6?). So ¥1200 per week. Then add developing for 2 rolls: ¥1000. Comes to ¥2200 per week, not counting travel expenses etc.
(Then I still need to scan, but I used to do that myself.)
¥2200 x 52 x 2 = ¥228.000 for 2 years.

I can buy an M9 2nd hand for ¥500.000. Could I sell it in two years for ¥272.000? If the M8 is any indication, I think I can, and that camera has much more imperfections then the M9, even when it was new.

Aren't film shooters still shooting with a film rangefinder because they compare the M9 to "compromise digital rangefinder equivalents", instead of comparing the M9 directly to their film workflow?

Sorry for the long rant, but it is a big decision, and I would like to get some of your views! Just answer the parts that you want!

cheers!

Choose the route that offers you the greatest joy in photography. Good luck! 😉

 

[jsrockit]

If you are after "factual" photography, like reportage and such- digital cannot be beat. Art photo- film rules.

I don't think you can say this absolutely either... since both have been done with both mediums.

 

[celluloidprop]

There is no point in trying to justify the purchase of M9 by counting the cost of development. The process of development, and better yet printing- that's a reward by itself, not jsut an expense.

At no point, while trapped in a closet, trying to wind 35mm film onto metal reels and then spending 20+ minutes in the developing room did I think "this is a reward." I mostly thought "gee, this would be almost bearable if I'd brought a flask."

Printing, sure, seeing your first print come up in Dektol is alchemy. But developing? That's just work.

 

[celluloidprop]

The Amon Carter Museum in Fort Worth (which has an excellent photography collection and generally has at least one photo exhibition going at any given time) has been buying large digital prints, lately, I've noticed (no clue on the original medium). I think the art-world stance toward digital and digital output is changing.

 

[bigeye]

This question never made sence to me.
Thed dont look BETTER or WORSE. They are simply completely different. Digital has beter details, film has better draw, not as plastiky.

There is no point in trying to justify the purchase of M9 by counting the cost of development. The process of development, and better yet printing- that's a reward by itself, not jsut an expense.

If you are after "factual" photography, like reportage and such- digital cannot be beat. Art photo- film rules.

I would agree, particularly for the amateur. (I don't believe that people understand the advantage, the freedom of being an amateur.)

.

 

[Gid]

You can, of course, find an economic argument for one over the other. I probably shoot a max of two rolls a week (equivalent mix of digi and film) and could have financed b&w film for about five years for the price of my M8.2. However, the problem for me is time to develop and scan (no darkroom) - I have about a dozen rolls from the last 6 months or so that I have still to develop and I haven't shot any film for the last few months. So, digital reduces the time it takes me to produce an image - I am an experienced LR and PS user so I know how to get what I want quite quickly. I'm not trying to emulate film. I take the digital images for what they are and others looking at my images (I do have several prints around the house and a number of photo books) don't usually ask what produced them.

If you think an M8 or M9 will give you what you want and free up time and space, just go for it.

 

[MIkhail]

I would agree, particularly for the amateur. (I don't believe that people understand the advantage, the freedom of being an amateur.)

.

I understand.

 

[MIkhail]

At no point, while trapped in a closet, trying to wind 35mm film onto metal reels and then spending 20+ minutes in the developing room did I think "this is a reward." I mostly thought "gee, this would be almost bearable if I'd brought a flask."

Printing, sure, seeing your first print come up in Dektol is alchemy. But developing? That's just work.

I suppose you are right...
My point was, though, that if I wanted those 10-15 pictures a year as I normally get, it would be cheaper to pay somebody or find pictures in gallery and buy it. It's the process of creation that brings joy, and trying to put a price or rationalize...
P.S.
The cost of M9 still blows my mind, here in USA at least, where average family still makes 30K a year, but I look at it as my own problem. I get by with M6 and TriX-400 or slide film just fine.

 

[collum]

The Amon Carter Museum in Fort Worth (which has an excellent photography collection and generally has at least one photo exhibition going at any given time) has been buying large digital prints, lately, I've noticed (no clue on the original medium). I think the art-world stance toward digital and digital output is changing.

is changing = has already changed.

the only place you'll find issues of digital vs analog is in internet photography forums. There's really only one major gallery venue.. Photography West in Carmel, that cares one way or another. The rest of the gallery world has moved on. There have been digital prints at the Weston Gallery for quite some time.

 

[rogerzilla]

I think film is far superior for b/w work. For colour, digital has the edge especially at high ISO. Colour film grain is rarely attractive.

 

[mls64]

I always considered an M8 or M9 as pre-paying for photography
.

A film M or R is "pay as you go" photography.

Very aptly put.

 

[Tom Niblick]

The Amon Carter Museum in Fort Worth (which has an excellent photography collection and generally has at least one photo exhibition going at any given time) has been buying large digital prints, lately, I've noticed (no clue on the original medium). I think the art-world stance toward digital and digital output is changing.

Yes, it has.

Photography has always been the ******* child of the arts. And a few years ago, anything less than a silver print was one rung lower - say a geeky ******* child. But now most galleries accept and sell archival digital prints.

Museums and collectors who insist on silver or platinum prints are missing out on some of the best contemporary work.

 

[ZlatkoBatistich]

Do I miss film. In a word, no.
....
No, I won't go back. Ever. Ever.

I feel the same way. I used film for many years, but at some point it became very clear to me that what I loved about photography wasn't the film. It is the photograph itself, and the making of the photograph. Film was just the means to an end ... a (then) necessary intermediate medium. If film were the only game in town, I would happily be using film. But digital offers a much easier path to the photographs I want to make or need to make for work. I still get the pleasure of developing a photograph in the darkroom, but the darkroom is now a Lightroom ... on a computer. And I don't smell like developer or stop bath or fixer. 🙂 I don't think there is anything superior in film for me, whether for color or black & white, other than that it is the only authentic way to do film ... which is not a priority for me.

 

[peripatetic]

I also love the way that film images look. But I live in London and cannot afford a darkroom. (An extra room - even a very small one - adds an extra £50,000 at least to the cost of a house.) And no, with smal children I cannot do everything in a kitchen or bathroom. Smelly, poisonous, and hugely time consuming.

Digital takes no extra space, can be processed quickly, easily and cheaply at home. I love the A3+ prints I can make at home, and can send my few really good images for printing at the pro labs.

The bottom line is that I love making images more than I love the look of film. (Which I can get reasonably close to emulating in software if I want to.) Also I don't care about an extra stop or 3 of DR in BW. I can bracket and merge if I need to.

If I won the lottery and had lots more time and money I'd shoot a lot of MF film and get it all processed and drum scanned and print at home.

I honestly much prefer digital prints to darkroom ones - yes even BW. The range of paper and inks available are amazing. And if the final result has to be a silver print then I can get those done at a lab from a digital file.

So to the OP - get an M9, sell everthing else except the X100, buy an Epson R3000 or new Canon Pro 1 for printing. Great for a space restricted life.

Actually, put yourself on a waiting list for an M9, and buy the new Fuji LX next year if that is available before you can get your hands on a Leica - which seems fairly likely.

 

[FrankHarries]

love my M8. Love my film rangefinders. I use them both. I stick to film - not mainly because of the images or their differences - but because of the whole procedure with film, developing and make the prints - smelling the chemistry, feel the paper, get the excitement when the picture starts to show (only b&w though) - this is real fun which a session in front of my Mac will never ever be able to give me.