Why not just buy an older film leica than the M9

[JohnTF]

I have an M8.

I have a Nikon Coolscan, and have been working to convert some "heritage" materials shot on film to digital. The Coolscan does a good job, but the time involved in high quality scanning and the tweaking drives me up the wall.

I have the slide feeder, and modified film feeder to scan rolls of film. Most of my film has been cut by processors, even when I ask them not to cut them, so I could easily be back to hand feeding strips of 5-- those quality scans are not fast.

I do not do C41 at home, and I have had some bad luck with processing quality, to say the least.

I also bought an A3 scanner to scan hand printed images, again, lots of time involved just in the scanning. No one locally could produce reliable quality scans of fine prints.

When I get some more time, I will use the Epson 750 for some of my MF negatives.

This is a lot of time in front of a screen.

Less is certainly more.

I also cannot imagine Nikon continuing film scanners much longer, nor the support for them-- demand for quality expensive scanners cannot be growing.


If the M9 is a fine camera, and the files give me a very good 12x15 print, I see no reason not to give it a test spin, hopefully I can decide by then how to best get the images on to printed media to serve my needs.

Roger-- one more advantage of digital, you can easily back up your files in several locations and locate them at some future time. I have thousands of negatives whose location I thought I would recall (often I do, just do not ask me to do it quickly). My fault for not being better organized , but folders on back up hard drives almost organize themselves.

I am also hoping I can send out files to be printed with better and more consistent results as hopefully I have made the necessary adjustments to the files, but the printer should print the file as delivered to him.

I have rarely gotten prints from negatives that are what I want, unless I have printed them.

A question of time, which I may have less of-- than the cost of a new digital body.

Is film still an option? Sure, I never toss anything out ;-) .


John

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

You'd have to shoot a lot of film to catch up to the price of an M9.

There are some superb scanning services out there, including North Coast

If you want the same (or better) resolution than the M8, with immaculate scanning results, it is expensive. Either outsourced, or by doing it yourself.

I invested in a Coolscan 5000 with the film roll feeder, and it was just as much as having bought the Coolscan 9000, which in my opinion is much better, but also slower than the 5000, and if you're scanning a lot, the double speed of the 5000 over the 9000 is a godsend, specially if you don't have much personal time when your job takes more than 40 hours a week (plus commute) of your life.

I did that (buying the Coolscan 5000) thinking it would be the cheapest option to shooting with an M8. In real life, my time was far more valuable, both economically and in my personal life.

So I went the M8 route. But I kept the scanner. Some day I'll be able to dedicate time to film again. I still have a 30+ roll backlog.

 

[scottyb70]

You haven't ever used an M8 have you?

No I haven't. The closest I saw a leica was My Grandma's ex boyfriend had 3 leicas he brought over from Germany. He is about 80 years old, I never found out what type of leicas they were but my grandma said he took for ever to adjust them to take a picture. He was a german soldier in WWII and supposedly he had to have permission or something like that to bring them to the US. Or they were specially modified for his type of use. I wish I knew what models they were, he would never part with them unless he dies.

 

[jky]

I'll think of getting the M9 if the price is right....

For weeks I pondered getting another M6 especially when Derrick (Seinarot here in RFF) lent me his. I missed the analog Ms, but one thing keeps bringing me back to digital.... instant gratification.
The time required for processing and scanning is just not available to me at the moment and rolls of exposed film end up just sitting in a bag waiting to be souped. Yes developing does not require too much time, but I'd rather be spending that time with the familia...
So... should the M9 be within reach.... 🙂

 

[leicashot]

I guess the poster has used, tested and compared the M9. IMHO, the M8 is in 'most applications' (beside the asthetics of grainy b+w) better than a film equivelent up to ISO 800. Fine pixels bring out more detail than fine grain especially below ISO 800....and to match it, or potentially better it, one must have a high end scanner, and be able to master the scanning process should they wish to digitize the image.

Scanning is a tedious process and I rarely see great files, even from people using good scanners, usually from user error as focusing and exposing correctly on a scanners is no easy task. It's like learning a whole new photographic process again, and it's not something I'm interested in wasting my time on when I have a perfectly good processing workflow with digital.

Everyone has different reasons 'why' they are no longer using film. For me, it's that digital has become my new workflow and I'm very keen on it compared to the previous slow and costly process of using, developing and printing/scanning film.

Personally I prefer the no fuss of the MP, as well as the style and slimmer form factor, but workflow is important to me, resulting in me having more time for other things than taking pictures. Also, digital allows me to correct mistakes I make in the field....yep, it certainly happens :bang:

 

[250swb]

Its frustrating in discussions like this that people equate getting a scan, any scan, as the equivalent of getting an image that matches the IQ of an M8. It isn't. A scan from a flatbed or poor film scanner isn't comparing like with like for IQ.

Oh, but its cheaper to use film? Is it? Get the lab to scan your film at a similar resolution to an M8 file and it costs around £12 per roll in the UK at a pro lab. An M8 costs £2500. Thats 208 rolls of film worth of scanning (not including the cost of film and processing), or only 4 rolls per week. If you only shoot 4 rolls per week the M8 has paid for itself after one year. Add the film and processing on and it is much, much, sooner. If you do the scanning yourself you need a very high quality scanner, factor in the film costs, then factor in your time. Its still not cheap to use film compared to buying an M8.

So how did we get a throughput of images before digital came along? Well we farmed processing out, or we used the darkroom. And going back to a darkroom is the only way I can see any equivalence between the speed of digital and the fastest possible turn around of film. Because scanning is slow, and printing a contact sheet or a set of test prints is much quicker to do than scanning them.

And my conclusion to this would be that film and scanning is the luxury corner of the market (in time and money spent), film and darkroom the traditional corner (for gentlemen of leisure and refinement), and digital the practical and cheaper corner of the market (so long as you don't have an annual holiday at either end of your CF card).

Steve

 

[dfoo]

How much speed do you need?
- Shoot film (unknown amount of time)
- Develop film (20 minutes)
- Dry film (1 hour)
- Scan film (1 hour with my CS 5000).

Not too bad.

 

[historicist]

The mind numbing tedium of scanning and spectacular cost of a decent film scanner are two pretty good reasons to buy a digital camera over a film Leica.

Me, film just looks different to the digital pictures from a M8 and I happen to prefer the film look.

 

[jky]

How much speed do you need?
- Shoot film (unknown amount of time)
- Develop film (20 minutes)
- Dry film (1 hour)
- Scan film (1 hour with my CS 5000).

Not too bad.

Processing, drying and scanning= 2:20... that's over two good episodes of "House" or a 2 hr installment of "So You Think You Can Dance" (the American version; I'm not a big fan of SYTYCD Canada) with the wifey .... 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

Its frustrating in discussions like this that people equate getting a scan, any scan, as the equivalent of getting an image that matches the IQ of an M8. It isn't. A scan from a flatbed or poor film scanner isn't comparing like with like for IQ.

Oh, but its cheaper to use film? Is it? Get the lab to scan your film at a similar resolution to an M8 file and it costs around £12 per roll in the UK at a pro lab. An M8 costs £2500. Thats 208 rolls of film worth of scanning (not including the cost of film and processing), or only 4 rolls per week. If you only shoot 4 rolls per week the M8 has paid for itself after one year. Add the film and processing on and it is much, much, sooner. If you do the scanning yourself you need a very high quality scanner, factor in the film costs, then factor in your time. Its still not cheap to use film compared to buying an M8.

So how did we get a throughput of images before digital came along? Well we farmed processing out, or we used the darkroom. And going back to a darkroom is the only way I can see any equivalence between the speed of digital and the fastest possible turn around of film. Because scanning is slow, and printing a contact sheet or a set of test prints is much quicker to do than scanning them.

And my conclusion to this would be that film and scanning is the luxury corner of the market (in time and money spent), film and darkroom the traditional corner (for gentlemen of leisure and refinement), and digital the practical and cheaper corner of the market (so long as you don't have an annual holiday at either end of your CF card).

Steve

Dear Steve,

Nicely argued and phrased!

Of course there's also historical accident for those who bought scanners (for colour film) before digital cameras were even tolerably good, and who then preferred to spend the money in dribs and drabs on film and processing rather than in one huge lump on a half-decent digicam (and until the M8 came out, 'half decent' is all they were for my purposes -- I just prefer rangefinders).

Cheers,

R.

 

[sunsworth]

In the UK a new M8 is £400 more expensive than an M7, and only £200 more expensive than an MP. For many of us after 12 months of usage the film M would be the more expensive option. The M9 has been listed as 5500 Euros.

 

[40oz]

unless you can get your digital cameras for free, film is always less expensive.

Seriously, did I read that right? Is someone actually using "low cost" as an argument in favor of a Leica digital body?!? If cost were an issue to you, you couldn't afford an M8. If you can afford one, any pretense of frugality is simply pretense.

And anyone choosing between scanning film and shooting digital for landscape photography has already given up on the chase for "resolution" or "image quality." A wet print from film is easily going to be better than an ink jet, if you are inclined to stick your nose to the paper. The only reason to scan is because it gives you the look of whatever film you like in a digital image.

People are free to use what they want, but it just seems silly to make all these nonsense excuses for it when no justification is necessary.

 

[BillBingham2]

Something that has it me of late is the ease in which I can adjust the ASA to meet the situation and not worry about reloading. This is really really handy, actually worth it's weight in gold to me. That said....

I would recomend that you run some tests with different labs that do hi-res scanning. While scanning yourself is a fine option, having it done in a dust free environment just sounds a lot better to me. Not worring about which setting to use for which film.

While the M9 is coming out and will be a wonderful camera, when will the M10 be ready? At some point you have to go there, but when? $7700 USD is a lot of money, but how much film do you shoot (looking at the break even point)? Is the 18mm becomeing a 24mm a good enough choice? Used M8s will be out there in September I bet at a reasonable price.

Run some tests with film and scanning now. It might be worth the delta in price (film vs digital) to go M9.

B2 (;->

 

[Roger Hicks]

unless you can get your digital cameras for free, film is always less expensive. . . . People are free to use what they want, but it just seems silly to make all these nonsense excuses for it when no justification is necessary.

Not only that. Things cost what they cost. When I lived in the UK and wanted to get to the airport to get away for a couple of weeks I could take a taxi . . . or drive and leave the car at the airport in long term parking . . . or take the train. The total cost and time for all three was astonishingly similar.

Shoot a roll of film a month, and film is cheaper. Shoot 50 rolls a month, and digital is cheaper. When I think of what we used to spend on film and Polaroids and lab fees and couriers when I worked in an advertising studio in the 70s, an S2 looks like a bargain, inflation-adjusted.

Cheers,

R.

 

[kshapero]

Dear Scotty,

You're dead right.

There are 3 main reasons to use an M8.2/M9 in colour:

1 You shoot a lot (savings on processing) or need fast results (publication)

2 You don't want the extra hassle of scanning

3 You are addicted to rapid gratification

In b+w, wet processed, you can add

4 Quality, archival imaging and 'look'.

When the M9 comes out I expect to use two Leicas (M9 color, MP B+W) with an original M8 as digi backup (I'll live with the crop) and M4-P or M2 as film back-up.

Cheers,

R.

Having never fondled that many Leica's at once, could I possibly work as your assistant for a few days?

 

[Toby]

Not only that. Things cost what they cost. When I lived in the UK and wanted to get to the airport to get away for a couple of weeks I could take a taxi . . . or drive and leave the car at the airport in long term parking . . . or take the train. The total cost and time for all three was astonishingly similar.

Shoot a roll of film a month, and film is cheaper. Shoot 50 rolls a month, and digital is cheaper. When I think of what we used to spend on film and Polaroids and lab fees and couriers when I worked in an advertising studio in the 70s, an S2 looks like a bargain, inflation-adjusted.

Cheers,

R.

I think there were commercial shooters in London who were paying labs in excess of £50,000 per year in film, developing and contact sheets when digital first started to be used for commercial work. In those cases a £20,000 camera that will do the same job must seem like the world's biggest bargain!

 

[skibeerr]

I think they have a photoshop effect to mock 4x5. I wouldnt be suprised to see an iphone app for that!

Off course, you shoot everything at f64 and just put on nice fat layers of photoshop Bokeh where you want.........easy🙄

 

[Roger Hicks]

I think there were commercial shooters in London who were paying labs in excess of £50,000 per year in film, developing and contact sheets when digital first started to be used for commercial work. In those cases a £20,000 camera that will do the same job must seem like the world's biggest bargain!

Sounds entirely likely. Every now and then we'd hit £100 a day, 35 years ago, in film, Polaroids, processing (especially rush fees) and (aaargh) couriers.

Cheers,

R.

 

[wgerrard]

Unless fortune smiles rather broadly on me, it is very unlikely that I will ever acquire an M8 or M9. So, the "how long before the M8 pays for itself" dynamic doesn't work for me. I'm more likely to play that game with an RD-1 or some such camera.

RF's attract me because of their combination of quality and size. I hate carrying stuff around. With, umm, two exceptions, using RF's for 35mm means using film.

 

[rovnguy]

I thoroughly enjoy shooting film; all types. I soup my own B&W for the same reasons... I'm happy with it. I do shoot digital, but this is primarily at work. I enjoy knowing that the negatives and transparencies are the source of my images and I can digitize them via my scanner too. If you haven't got the passion and patience for film, too bad.