Worth it????

[pgk]

That's a bit of a stretch, since you can still use a 1954 M3. In 50 years will an M10 be more than a paperweight? How long does it take to amortize the $7k US....& subsequent service?

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]

“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/

 

[steveyork]

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.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

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.

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]

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! 😀

🙄

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]

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

I had M8s and still have M9s. Despite all their faults they still deliver superb images. I sell gallery prints from both.

 

[jsrockit]

I had M8s and still have M9s. Despite all their faults they still deliver superb images. I sell gallery prints from both.

And before the mirrorless craze, it was all we had if you wanted a large sensor camera that wasn´t a DSLR... (well, and the epson).

 

[ptpdprinter]

When people display photographs created using process X, they almost always say so, in large letters: An Exhibition of Tintypes by Joe Bloggs.

Why the reluctance when it comes to digital photos?

An Exhibition of Digital Photography by Joe Bloggs...

...is something I never see, but would be informative in helping people understand the work within the broader sphere of photography.

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]

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?

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]

As far as I'm aware (and correct me if I'm wrong) no digital camera is capable of actually producing an image that the human eye can see. The sensor only produces data, then either the onboard computer or external one (via Lightroom etc.) interprets the data and renders an image. Without the aid of a computer interpreting the data, the camera and it's sensor actually produces nothing but zeros and ones.

Correct?

Hence in the true sense of the word, only a digital camera tethered to a printer could actually be considered to be a camera. I.e. a device (or devices in this case) which produce an image.

I guess you could argue that the data is still an image even though no human or other animal could ever see it, but that's pointless and may as well be dismissed.

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]

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.

I hear you 100%.... no to describe photography as analog or digital... its just photography..

 

[jsrockit]

Good point Klaus.

 

[ptpdprinter]

But if you read my posts again you'll see that I'm doing nothing but arguing it should have a different name to acknowledge how different it is from analogue photography.

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]

I hear you 100%.... no to describe photography as analog or digital... its just photography..

So, no differentiation needed between Woodcut, Chalcography, Steel engraving, etc.etc., -- duh, it's all *Printmaking*, after all?

😀

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

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]

...
Of course some types of media require processing after they leave the camera before you can see the image, but the important point is that ultimately some form of image appears upon it - a photograph. That's what you can't do with digital...which is what I said in my first comment.

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]

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.

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]

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.