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

I am vain. I like how I look holding a zeiss ikon... :D

On economics: it depends on where you live.

I can process color film near my home for less than US$3. I shoot portra 400, which I can get for $6 from freestyle. Thats $10 or so per roll of 36 exposure. I pay for it by brewing my own coffee.

A Leica M9 is about 700 rolls of portra (and whole lot more Arista Premium, my main film). That is definitely more than 2 years of shooting for me.

My philosophy is: I have the time now to use film and enjoy the process. When I change jobs or move to a new place, I'll have re-evaluate.


zwarte_kat said:
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!
Click to expand...
 
In terms of "I don't shoot that much," my assumption is that most people would shoot a lot more with a digital M over film. As a sunk cost, there's no risk to experimentation, trying things you might not if you realize you only have 72 frames at hand or that each frame costs X.
 
I try very hard not to let economics come into any of my decisions on photo gear. I have a 5 million dollar home camera bag and inside it on most days are M6 Ti & M9 plus 21/35/50/90. My preference is B&W film so M6 is first cab off the rank. I shoot what I see so if I see something that might look better digitally or in colour out comes M9. I find if I think it through economically I would sell it all up and just use my X100. I am kinaesthetic and is about the feel for me. Just have to earn enough to be able to buy the toys that feel best in my hand. Also shooting film means I print more and that is a big issue to me. Have '000s of images on my computer and hard drives then never ever make it to paper.
 
zwarte_kat said:
Regardless, I am moving in with my GF, and we'll have a ridiculously small room.
Click to expand...

I think you could stop right there. Unless you're a pro and this is your life, it's a good idea to be wise with the tiny space you have. Perhaps one excellent film camera and one excellent digi, and sell the scanner. You could do 90% of your shooting on digital, freeing up much space. The film shooting would need to be professionally developed, scanned and printed, but so what, it's only 10% so you can splurge.

As far as which two cameras, it doesn't matter that much, just choose.



zwarte_kat said:
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?
Click to expand...

I shoot film just because I like it. I like every bit of it. I don't compare it to digital because it's utterly different. But if you love both digital and film too I think that's great, and shooting both may be the way for you to save space while still enjoying the benefits of both types of photography.

Good luck!

Jeff
 
Personally, I think the only thing the M9 CAN'T do is capture the dynamic range of black & white film with good processing. With the M9 there is always a tiny bit of loss in the shadows or the highlights that a black & white emulsion can capture. Extremely fine details in bright clouds, for example. It's a lot like slide film. But then again, I love slide film!
Other than that, the M9 is an amazing implementation of digital technology and can usually best the output of film. Right tool for the job though, remember.

Phil Forrest
 
just got a contax iiia because I miss 35mm B&W

just got a contax iiia because I miss 35mm B&W

Over time, I've had a

2 35mm range finders
1 645 Range Finder
2 645 AF range finders
1 Nikon MF film body
2 AF Nikon film bodies .....

None have really grabbed me to the point of keeping them long term.

However, I miss the film process, If I were living in a small space, I would:

Keep on film RF for B&W, then get an Epson RD-1 to match the lenses, and stick with a Panasonic G3 for my non RF digital needs.

Daylight develop, mix to needs, don't store, keep the Epson, it can be made to work.

For me, not all of my photographic hobby is about the image, much of it is about the path to get the image!

Dave
 
To zwarte_kat (OP), two thoughts:

1. Unless you shoot Medium Format in equal amount with 35mm, sell your V700 and get yourself a used Nikon Coolscan V ED. It takes much less space and about the best scan quality this side of a properly post-processed drum scans.

2. M9 or Noctilux won't buy you happiness or photography bliss. I know how easy it is to think that gear will make us better photographers, but it just does not. Buy yourself a decent DSLR and shoot digital, you don't *need* an M9.
 
jsrockit said:
Care to elaborate why you think a Leica film camera will always beat a M9 in IQ?
Click to expand...

Maybe not all of us put the same level of importance on IQ (as it's vaguely standardized by what people commonly think without showing any pictures).
 
shadowfox said:
Maybe not all of us put the same level of importance on IQ (as it's vaguely standardized by what people commonly think without showing any pictures).
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should go back and read his original quote that I quoted... and not make it a personal attack against me. Some people choose to post photos daily in threads and some people choose to take their time to work on a body of work (and show it when it is done).

My point is that you cannot absolutely say that a film M is better than a digital M and vise versa results wise. He stated that you can definitively say that a film M is better results wise. I'd like to know how one figures that out.
 
Last edited:
jsrockit said:
Care to elaborate why you think a Leica film camera will always beat a M9 in IQ?
Click to expand...

You need to be more accurate with another's statements.

When someone says, "I look at some of my [CLE] shots that I like, I can't help but think: "how great would that have looked on an M9!"", something is off.

Digital is still about the time, space and cost of processing. 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.

- Charlie
 
Last edited:
bigeye said:
You need to be more careful with my statements.

When someone says, "I look at some of my [CLE] shots that I like, I can't help but think: "how great would that have looked on an M9!"", something is pretty far off.

Digital is still about the time, space and cost of processing. 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.

- Charlie
Click to expand...

I can agree that one is not better than the other, but when I said that, you said "Then we see things very differently." I'm not sure how I took that differently than it was stated.
 
I was there myself. I sold my M8.2 and all my Canon DSLR gear (1DmkIII, 5DmkII, etc...) and went to:

1. Medium format film - for the slow enjoyment of using these cameras and the results I can get.
2. 35mm film - for when I want to take more photos, mostly street/urban when I'm just noodling around, choosing my shots, etc...
3. Digital (Panasonic GF1 and Sony 5N) for travel photography, and for event photography when I need to takes LOTS of shots in a short period of time.

So when I need a blaster, I choose a digital blaster, and when I want to take it slower and enjoy the process more, I choose film.

Joe
 
shadowfox said:
To zwarte_kat (OP), two thoughts:

1. Unless you shoot Medium Format in equal amount with 35mm, sell your V700 and get yourself a used Nikon Coolscan V ED. It takes much less space and about the best scan quality this side of a properly post-processed drum scans.
Click to expand...

I'm getting exceptional results from my Reflecta Proscan 7200, subjectively better than my Coolscan L5000 that I had a couple of years ago.
 
Cheers

Cheers

shadowfox said:
To zwarte_kat (OP), two thoughts:

1. Unless you shoot Medium Format in equal amount with 35mm, sell your V700 and get yourself a used Nikon Coolscan V ED. It takes much less space and about the best scan quality this side of a properly post-processed drum scans.

2. M9 or Noctilux won't buy you happiness or photography bliss. I know how easy it is to think that gear will make us better photographers, but it just does not. Buy yourself a decent DSLR and shoot digital, you don't *need* an M9.
Click to expand...

Cheers Shadowfox.
Of course I don't need any camera, it's about what I want mostly. I actually have a DSLR and work with DSLRs daily at work. I like shooting with them when I do events and the client needs hundreds of pictures. I'm in a different flow then. Believe me I tried out most types of cameras out there for private shooting, and I prefer a rangefinder. I bought the A12 mount, accepting from day 1 that I might sell it after a few months, and I probably will. It takes beautiful images, but doesn't give me the same feeling. I actually like this search for cameras. People here often discard the importance of gear, but it's important for me. At least I am honest with myself haha!

The Nikon coolscan is actually not a bad idea, but it will increase the scanning workload. I was considering to switch ONLY to MF film, combining it with digital.

@Maddoc
Maybe I am too strict on my negatives/scans. They don't look BAD from my scans, it was just a bit of a shock that the store's prints were better straight from my negatives. But I did some A3 prints that were good to me. I think A3 is the turning point where you need a really good quality shot for a good quality print.

Maybe Kitamura in Shinjuku is just really awesome, and I should be happy about that :)

Really nice images posted here defconracing. What kind of software do you use to edit the images?

In the end, the M9 is probably the ultimate for me. To think I could shoot with my Zeiss Sonnar in digital full frame, it's quite exiting.
 
bigeye said:
You need to be more accurate with another's statements.

When someone says, "I look at some of my [CLE] shots that I like, I can't help but think: "how great would that have looked on an M9!"", something is off.

Digital is still about the time, space and cost of processing. 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.

- Charlie
Click to expand...

In the end a film camera is just a hole with a button, if anything influences the IQ, it's the film/lens (and, of course, the shot...)

When I put my lenses on the A12 mount, I already found I could make nicer quality prints then the results of my film shooting. I don't develop or print myself, and don't want to.

I agree there is more to IQ then sharpness. Like I said, fIlm has nice structure. If film was as convenient as digital, I wouldn't mind the "quality" difference, and wouldn't spend money on the M9.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom