pgk
Well-known
In 50 years time I doubt that I'll care and unless any of us is clairvoyant
its conjecture as to whether any existent film or digital cameras will still be usable. As far as I am aware M3 parts are still available but the stocks that exist are all there are unless someone is willing to hand build bits and pieces. The digitals may last as long as their batteries and the film cameras as long as they are repairable.In terms of camera longevity, I seem to remember an M3 being tested to 500k shutter actuations without failure but I wouldn't want to have to shoot that much film or pay for it. I don't know what shutter life is on the M10 but 100k actuations should be minimum; still a lot of shooting and good value.
Bill Clark
Veteran
“I am aware M3 parts are still available..“
I wonder if any of the parts for the current film camera M-A will work on a M-3? To me, they mostly look alike.
Interesting read I found:
https://www.35mmc.com/19/04/2015/leica-m-a/
I wonder if any of the parts for the current film camera M-A will work on a M-3? To me, they mostly look alike.
Interesting read I found:
https://www.35mmc.com/19/04/2015/leica-m-a/
steveyork
Well-known
I've owned Leicas for 20 years, and there is nothing I can do with a Leica that I can't also do with a Nikon rangefinder or even my pre-war Zeiss Ikon Contax. Each have their own strengths and weaknesses but they are all capable of taking great pictures. In some respects, for example, that old Contax has it over any Leica -- larger viewfinder patch, longer rangefinder base, higher contrast, ect. Is a Leica worth the high price? Probably not, especially if not concerned with the "community aspect" of ownership, but a film Leica does have a strong used market and most often one is able to get their money out of them.
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
In 50 years time I doubt that I'll care and unless any of us is clairvoyant
In terms of camera longevity, I seem to remember an M3 being tested to 500k shutter actuations without failure but I wouldn't want to have to shoot that much film or pay for it. I don't know what shutter life is on the M10 but 100k actuations should be minimum; still a lot of shooting and good value.
You took my response out of context. “they’re cheaper than film cameras ever were overall”. That is in my opinion still a stretch for an M10 body. Look at the M8 fiasco & the M9 sensor issues....let alone the overall depreciation
creenus
Established
Nah, I just shoot film and digital because I love it.
In fact, I'm gonna burn some film today and develop it for free on Monday. So yeah, then I'll get back to the darkroom. And then I'll make some prints. Also for free. And getting outside and seeing new things is better than snarking all day on a computer.
You have a nice day, sir or madam!
In fact, I'm gonna burn some film today and develop it for free on Monday. So yeah, then I'll get back to the darkroom. And then I'll make some prints. Also for free. And getting outside and seeing new things is better than snarking all day on a computer.
You have a nice day, sir or madam!
And there it is again. I haven't dismissed anything. In fact, I went out of my way to say all photographic mediums are equally valid and should be used, exhibited, collected etc. All I said was it should be categorised with a name to make it easily distinguished.
If you're insecure enough about the medium to be horrified by the idea of giving it a name which may separate it from analogue photography, then perhaps you need to get back in the darkroom?
pgk
Well-known
I had M8s and still have M9s. Despite all their faults they still deliver superb images. I sell gallery prints from both.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
I never see exhibitions which say: An Exhibition of Film Photography by Joe Bloggs. I make PtPd prints using digital negatives. Should my exhibits be labeled: An Exhibition of Hybrid Photography by Joe Bloggs? Can I label my prints "platinum/palladium" or do I have to say "platinum/palladium using a digital negative" or "platinum/palladium using a digital negative from a digital image" or "platinum/palladium using a digital negative from a scanned film image"?
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Analog photography? I never see exhibitions which say: An Exhibition of Analog Photography by Joe Bloggs. Doesn't the public have a right to know? Really, the galleries I have been to describe the print as silver gelatin or pigment ink or whatever. Isn't that disclosure enough? Nobody is trying to hide anything or deceive anyone.
icebear
Veteran
When was the last time you pulled your exposed film out of an "analog" camera and you have been able to view the image?
35photo
Well-known
I hear you 100%.... no to describe photography as analog or digital... its just photography..
Good point Klaus.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
No, your original argument was that digital photography was not photography because digital cameras could not create photographs, only files. Your argument seems to have evolved over the course of the thread.
Sumarongi
Registered Vaudevillain
So, no differentiation needed between Woodcut, Chalcography, Steel engraving, etc.etc., -- duh, it's all *Printmaking*, after all?
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
So, no differentiation needed between Chalcography, Steel engraving, etc.etc., -- duh, it's all *Printmaking*, after all?
When I was working on my fine arts degree at Indiana University, I took a class called "Printmaking." In the class, we did Intaglio (hardground etching, softground etching, engraving, aquatint), Lithography, and Block Printing. It was ALL Printmaking.
I graduated before digital became available, but today if you take Photography there, you'll do digital alongside a number of chemical processes like silver gelatin printing, cyanotype, chromogenic printing, etc. It is all taught as Photography.
Axel
singleshooter
All other film media require processing before you can see the image.
Only digital pictures appear immediately on the camera.
Without any waiting or wasting additional resources.
I like polaroids and all the other ways of getting an image for their unique handling and individual advantages in personal use. But that is no reason to mark one as "better as" or "not a photograph" neither it has one logical reference to the questions the threadopener asked here.
Sumarongi
Registered Vaudevillain
Wait a moment. I know, you have a lot gubmint cheese in Germany, but I didn't know you have gubmint electricity in Germany? Really, electricity completely for free?
roscoetuff
Well-known
WOw, this thread seems to have gone to unexpected places! I'm going to side with Chris on just about every point.
But to return to the original topic, I like rangefinders for general photography 'cause they're quiet, and usually the lenses are a tad lighter so the total package size can fit better for many uses with less notice, less sound, less intrusiveness and frankly less SLR mirror wobble. As to qualification to comment, I have 2 Leica's (M4-2 and M6 TTL) and a recently acquired Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta 3 with coupled rangefinder in MF - and I love them. And yes, I had a Leica CL way back in the day as well. I also have a 35mm SLR, 2 MF SLR's (Rolleiflex), and a Sony A7RII. To be fair, since most P&S's are "rangefinders", all of us of course have shot RF's all our lives - but generally without the benefit of the true, high end RF of the Leica, Zeiss and Contax (and many others) sort.
But there are limits and telephoto and macro photography are the two most obvious. I bought and quickly sold my Leica 135mm lens as just not adding enough to be worth the difficult handling in focus, framing and composition in that tiny little frame. Same focal length Zeiss 135mm lens on a Contax S2 renders beautifully on film and digital.
I have not had the pleasure of a digital Leica 'cause it was more $'s than I wanted to spend or justify to myself in one place. But from a distance, I admire Leica's desire to construct digital photography around a series of menu interfaces that would keep the focus on photography and minimize the management of the silicon system. Despite the praise, I didn't find Fuji's menus as good as advertised, or despite the near universal condemnation that Sony's were as a bad as advertised. But from the outside, Leica's look to be simple.
RF's don't do everything well there's a lot to like for much of what I like to shoot. And if you can focus with them, and for my bit, I find RF focusing simpler than the standard split image SLR (because the split an sometimes catch the light and obscure half of the split leaving me to tilt or shift the subject in order to "nail" it), then RF focusing is absolutely a wonder. And all the other features only add to the simplicity - and features that add simplicity is a phrase I just don't associate with much in the camera world.
But to return to the original topic, I like rangefinders for general photography 'cause they're quiet, and usually the lenses are a tad lighter so the total package size can fit better for many uses with less notice, less sound, less intrusiveness and frankly less SLR mirror wobble. As to qualification to comment, I have 2 Leica's (M4-2 and M6 TTL) and a recently acquired Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta 3 with coupled rangefinder in MF - and I love them. And yes, I had a Leica CL way back in the day as well. I also have a 35mm SLR, 2 MF SLR's (Rolleiflex), and a Sony A7RII. To be fair, since most P&S's are "rangefinders", all of us of course have shot RF's all our lives - but generally without the benefit of the true, high end RF of the Leica, Zeiss and Contax (and many others) sort.
But there are limits and telephoto and macro photography are the two most obvious. I bought and quickly sold my Leica 135mm lens as just not adding enough to be worth the difficult handling in focus, framing and composition in that tiny little frame. Same focal length Zeiss 135mm lens on a Contax S2 renders beautifully on film and digital.
I have not had the pleasure of a digital Leica 'cause it was more $'s than I wanted to spend or justify to myself in one place. But from a distance, I admire Leica's desire to construct digital photography around a series of menu interfaces that would keep the focus on photography and minimize the management of the silicon system. Despite the praise, I didn't find Fuji's menus as good as advertised, or despite the near universal condemnation that Sony's were as a bad as advertised. But from the outside, Leica's look to be simple.
RF's don't do everything well there's a lot to like for much of what I like to shoot. And if you can focus with them, and for my bit, I find RF focusing simpler than the standard split image SLR (because the split an sometimes catch the light and obscure half of the split leaving me to tilt or shift the subject in order to "nail" it), then RF focusing is absolutely a wonder. And all the other features only add to the simplicity - and features that add simplicity is a phrase I just don't associate with much in the camera world.