Would love your input: sell Contax and Leica...and then what?

[froyd]

I have a version of this post that's two pages long. It's mostly a rambling of thoughts jumbled up in my head. Wish I could chat in person with like-minded folks, but RFF is my only outlet. I tried to boil this down to two issues/questions:

1) I'd like to own less cameras, so I'd like to sell both a Contax G and a Leica M4 plus assorted lenses (for approx $2800) and buy one body to replace both cameras.

I have the G because I love the lenses and the ergonomics of the camera, but hate the VF and don't need AF. I have the M4 because it's photography at it's purest, but on occasions I would like an in-camera meter. I find it hard to let the M go because the tactile pleasure of using it is quite high so it's always the camera I grab when I head out. For every time I'm missing an in-camera meter, there are many when I'm thoroughly enjoying shooting without the harassment of blinking LEDs in the VF.

2) I print digitally (R3000) so I need digital files from my cameras, so I wonder if my next camera should be digital (M8, most likely) or film camera (ZM or R2M) + a scanner (I shoot 2-3 rolls a month).

The scanner idea is appealing because I could go back to silver emulsions after abandoning them in favor of C41 films for processing at Costco. I still have my darkroom gear so developing HP5 and Tri-X would require little investment. Fun! ...but one more thing to add to the rather busy schedule of a father of young kids. 30 mins for developing and 1.5h to scann 15-20 frames per roll, is doable, but would take a toll.

The digital camera route would do away with all that. I like Lightroom work, and I think I would prefer it to scanning + PP.

----------END OF POST---------

Additional info, for the masochists in the group:

- M8 pro: it offers the convenience of built-in meter, similarity with traditional M bodies to make me miss the m4 a little less, neatly bypasses the scanning process, and at $1700-$1800 would leave me some room for a good lens. ISO speed not an issue for me (mainly shoot iso 400 on film)

The M8 negatives for me are: crop factor would mean buying lenses in the "wrong" focal length, it would always feel as a stepping stone to an M9-ME (I know many M8 users would never consider changing their M8, but I think that probably won't be me). Also, clutterd frame lines. Final negative: it's digital, and it scares me a bit. i am afraid I won't be able to use it as well as film, but this is a minor issue, an I think I'll overcome it with practice.

- Zeiss Ikon pro: always loved that camera ever since first getting my first RF, an R2a. At $1000 it would leave lots of room for lenses and scanner. I would get some ZM lnses to match he look of the beloved G glass and some old lenses to give me the look I love from my Summaron (which i would sell since the goggles won't work on the ZI). Can't wait to try the VF. The M4 VF is great, but I preferred that of the R2a, so I'm sure the Zi will impress. Plus, clean frame lines (few pairs).

The negatives: probably won't feel as nice as the M4 or even the M8. A silly consideration for some, but no for me. The meter always has to be on. Take out the batteries and the shutter goes along with the meter. Wish I could go back and forth. Then again, i hear the ZM meter washes out in bright light...that might work to my advantage!

- R2M pro: chose between meter or meterless since the camera still ticks without batteries. Cheap = lots of money for lenses and scanner.

Cons: hard to find in silver, and I strongly prefer chrome (there one in the classifieds right now, but I still have to figure out whether a film camera or a digital one are in my future)

 

[thejameskendall]

why not an M6 - which works without a battery but also has a lightmeter if you have a battery in it?

 

[redisburning]

if your passion is b&w I'd stick with film.

minolta 5400s go for less than you could sell your contax kit will go for. put the left over + cash from the M4 and get an M6.

if you want, you can sell your leica lenses and get Zeiss equivalents if it will give you cash you can use towards something you really want. I honestly would rather have Leica in many cases but both M and ZM lenses are better than almost any medium you can shoot them on.

fwiw M7 prices have been coming down, I dont know what fl you need but I suspect you could run an M7 and Zeiss lenses and have aperture priority if that's really what you want. IQ would be the same but you'd have larger lenses in many cases.

 

[FrankS]

Sell all your film cameras and buy a digital camera.

 

[Classique]

Maybe try Epson RD1? I had my doubts about the 6 megapixel and it's "old" sensor but I was pleasantly surprised. It feels like a film rangefinder and with the screen turned around, it works like film rangefinder... and its results sure look comparable to film with light tweaking in lightroom. Even iso 1600 is easily usable for normal sized prints (4x6) or web posts in color and I am sure you can print much bigger in B/W.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

I'm not sure if your 'problem' is that you have two cameras and only really want one, or if it's that you have the wrong two cameras. I completely understand the G2 sentiments. I keep selling them because of the viewfinder, but come back because of the glass, ergonomics, build, design, etc....

I'd go the Zeiss Ikon route. And, then supplement it with a Fuji X100s, if that focal length works for you. So you can keep film as a primary medium, and continue to use the lenses you have, or try different ones. And the Fuji digital for 'different occasions.' No reason to stick to a one camera way of life. If it really has to be one camera, the Ikon does what you want. I bought one after having two Leica M7s, and preferred using the Ikon. See if you can handle one in person. If it doesn't give you the same tactile joy you get from the M4, go with an M7 instead.

 

[Richard G]

Keep the M4 and Leica lenses. You will end up back there with some pain and loss. I was underwhelmed by the ZI and didn't like the idea of the easy wearing out especially of a black one. Not sure if you have to start over with camera and lenses if you do offload your Leica and Contax, hardly too many cameras, especially around here. If you get a digital get the ME or a used M9.

 

[Richard G]

X100s is good suggestion for your shots.

 

[JustPlainBill]

Hi,
Before doing anything drastic, I'd buy a Leica Meter or one of the little Voigtlander light meters for my M4. You may find yourself happily photographing with your M4.
JustPlainBill

 

[Pioneer]

Photography, and the choice of your tools, is rarely a simple set of logical choices. People sometimes want to try and make it that way but the reality is usually much more complex. Unless you know all the variables it is almost impossible to make a recommendation for you. But, I'll give it a try.

One - You already own an M4 so another brand of rangefinder is not likely going to satisfy you. The Zeiss Ikon is actually very nice so there is an outside chance that you may be able to work with it. But my recommendation is, if you want to work with film, keep the M4 and buy a hand held meter.

Two - You are interested in digital but you are nervous about it, especially the cost. My recommendation? Stay away from the M8, even though it is the only digital rangefinder you think you can afford right now. You are already worried about dealing with the crop factor. The reality is that the crop factor is not a big issue, but everyone talks about it so it must be an issue. However, since you are already convinced you won't like it then you should start saving until you can afford to buy a used M9. If you wait, you won't regret it in the long run.

Three - Don't worry about getting a scanner. The cost will interfere with saving up for your M9 and using a scanner is a pain in the neck. Have the lab scan your film for you. Once you buy your M9 you won't need it and the only thing that depreciates in value faster than a digital SLR is a scanner.

Four - Ignore most of the advice you get here, even mine. Write up a list of the things you need from your photography and build your own plan to get from here to there. Then stick to it.

Five - Ignore all those people who will want to tell you that film is better than digital, or vice versa. It is all photography and it is all good. It will take you at least as long to get good with film as it will with digital. There is no free lunch and getting really good means you have to be willing to put in the time. That is just as true for digital as it is for film.

Six - Most of all, enjoy yourself and your photography.

 

[bobby_novatron]

The thing that really resonated with me about the original post was the part about "busy schedule as the father of young kids".

I totally understand. I've got two young ones myself, and it's tough to get a free couple of hours to do some B+W in my basement bathroom.

In addition to all the pro's and con's of the gear combos you've listed, you might want to consider how choosing each batch of gear will affect your time management.

Shooting digital = pretty fast n easy. Sure, some guys obsess about their PP until their eyes are bloodshot, but at least extracting some jpeg's fresh from the camera takes little time at all -- compared to film!

I love love LOVE shooting film. I'm a die-hard film fan. Although I have a nice dSLR, I rarely use it. And when I do, I feel like I've instantly taken a rocket ride into the future ... WOW! Auto-everything! Face recognition! Adjustable White Balance! It's insane! A monkey with a lobotomy could probably use a nice dSLR and get some good comments on Flickr.

Anyhoo. I shoot 90% film, and 10% digital. The film takes MUCH MORE TIME to do. Sometimes I think it's the biggest pain in the butt to still be messing around with film, but it really pleases me in a tactile and visceral way. A USB card doesn't feel the same to me. No love.

Time-wise, I know my time is valuable and limited. But I value the amount of patience and time it takes for me to hone my darkroom techniques to get the quality I'm looking for. Sloshing around in a dark room for an hour is a delight for me. If I didn't like it, I wouldn't do it.

So if you go digital, you'll have a much cleaner and faster workflow. What's that worth to you? Will it help organize your life better -- not having the worry and time commitment to develop and then scan negatives? 'Cuz you're right ... it's an hour to develop the films, then let them dry, then prepare them for scanning, then set the parameters on the scanning program, then letting the scanner buzz and humm for an hour, then replacing those negatives with some other ones. WHEW! And then do it again and again, depending on how many rolls you have.

With a digital camera, you zap the photos instantly into your photo program. Maybe organize them a bit by drag-and-drop. Click, you're done.

Photography is such a personal and visceral thing. I think there are no easy answers to the OP's questions, besides DO WHAT YOUR HEART TELLS YOU TO DO and ENJOY YOUR PHOTOGRAPHY.

 

[Contarama]

Well I don't have a Contax or a Leica but I had a nice Nikon...I sold it and bought two lenses..now I don't have enough money to buy a digital camera that is worth anything...

Someday I will get a cool body...

 

[hepcat]

Keep the M4 and Leica lenses. You will end up back there with some pain and loss. I was underwhelmed by the ZI and didn't like the idea of the easy wearing out especially of a black one. Not sure if you have to start over with camera and lenses if you do offload your Leica and Contax, hardly too many cameras, especially around here. If you get a digital get the ME or a used M9.

Hi,
Before doing anything drastic, I'd buy a Leica Meter or one of the little Voigtlander light meters for my M4. You may find yourself happily photographing with your M4.
JustPlainBill

I just sold an entire Olympus E-series DSLR setup; three bodies and array of lenses and returned to Leica digital after a ten-year hiatus. I wish I'd kept my Leica gear... the price of re-admission is very high. I like the versatility of having both digital and film bodies. I now have an M8, M9P, and an M4-P that all share the same lenses and accessories. I switch among them regularly, and the crop factor isn't a problem with the M8. A 28mm wide, 35mm normal, and 75mm short tele are perfect and cover the 35-50-90 range if I'm using the M4-P or M9. I was looking for an M6 metered film body and happened to find the M4-P with the Leicameter MR-4 included. It's perfect for the occasional roll of film. Film and digital, contrary to the opinions of some, are NOT mutually exclusive. Having both bodies available gives you options. Having both film and digital bodies available that feel and operate similarly, and use all of the same lenses and accessories makes a lot of sense, both operationally and financially.

A brief word about the M8... although it has had many vocal detractors on many points, it was and remains a competent, solid performer. For every person who has a complaint about the camera, there are two dozen owners who are out there happily shooting away with their M8s. Although I have and enjoy my M9P, the M8 finds its way into my bag much of the time.

I shot film Ms for many years with a hand-held meter or no meter at all, and the convenience of the MR-4 is really nice. The VCII is less expensive. Of my eight lenses, five are Voigtlander and three of those are Noktons. I couldn't be more pleased with them and I bought all of them for less than the cost of a new Summilux 50, so the cost of an extra lens or two doesn't have to mean a second mortgage on the house. If you need to pick up an extra lens, a 28mm or 75mm to comfortably and affordably cover the M8's 35-50-90 range, they're a very good choice.

The two posts above are really good counsel. Sell the G, keep the M4 and your M lenses and pick up an M8 and a shoe-mount meter for your M4. As Richard G suggests, and I know from experience, that's likely where you'd be back to at some point anyway. It took me a lot of years and a lot of dollars spent in equipment to figure that out. My excuse was that there wasn't an affordable digital Leica on the horizon when I sold my M4 kit and I thought I'd never want to shoot film again. I was wrong.

 

[leicapixie]

Use your time better.*
Have you cut back on TV or internet surfing?
More hours per week makes Photography easy.
Keep the Leica and it's lenses.
Specially the lenses.You always need lenses.
even on a digital M.
i would add a scanner.
Sure they are a pain, but work.
Cost from under $200 to best $750.
The M8 is a flawed camera.
Some major parts are not available..
Leica cannot make cameras that last forever..
Lack of sales plus digital keeps advancing.
* i ran a successful store plus did photography.
Pro shoots plus covering a changing South Africa.
Lectured young people on documenting and photojournalism.
My time donated, the facilities paid for by the Apartheid Government!
Change was well under way, well before Mandela release!
The Contax cannot advise..never used one.

 

[thegman]

It sounds like you like the idea of the digital workflow, if that's the case, film is always going to seem like a pain to you I think.

My own choice would be to go to medium format. A V700 and BetterScanning kit makes scanning easy, and there are fewer shots of course. Plus you can print as big as you like really, with those scans.

GF670 or Mamiya 7 are modern and fairly automatic in use. But it sounds like you'd like digital more.

 

[johannielscom]

Sell all your film cameras and buy a digital camera.

More specific, buy a Ricoh GXR with M-mount!

🙂

Keep the M4 with lenses, get a Voigtlander VC-II meter for the M4. Shoot digital when in need of quicker stuff, shoot the M4 when you have time and feel like it!

 

[Bill Clark]

Enjoy your family. Live for them. They grow up fast. I can remember the moment our daughter was born (1978). Now she is married and has children. We love grand kids!

Life is an adventure. Use your cameras to record the moments as someday they will be memories. The moments don't care what equipment you're using. As the song says, these are the good old days!

 

[Vickko]

I'd go M9.
I have similar constraints with the kids and time.
Love film, owned a lot of film cameras that I considered "classical".
But given time constraints, ease of process, go M9.

 

[sepiareverb]

Have you ever scanned film? It sucks. Cleaning up a scan is nothing like hanging out in a darkroom with a brush and a dusty negative.

If you're printing digitally shoot digitally.

 

[froyd]

Wow!

Wow!

Thanks for all the thoughtful responses. If we were at an RFF meet I would buy you all a round of drinks!

I would also reply to your suggestions with additional insights and thoughtful replies...as it is I'll have to make do with the forum interface. I'm not including all the replies because it would make my post too long, but know that your input was received and appreciated.

why not an M6 - which works without a battery but also has a lightmeter if you have a battery in it?

I'm open to other cameras beside what I mentioned in the original post but before I get there, I need to figure out the digital body /vs scanner issue.

Sell all your film cameras and buy a digital camera.

Yep. Very tempting, but I'm still keeping a few film bodies (Nikon and Rolleiflex).

Keep the M4 and Leica lenses. You will end up back there with some pain and loss.

I'm not immune to the fear of regrets, and the cost of readmission thing weighs on my mind particularly because I had a good deal on my camera and lenses. Still, I want to live for the present, and would rather have the camera the best fits my needs and budget right now.

But my recommendation is, if you want to work with film, keep the M4 and buy a hand held meter.[/B]

Got a good meter. Use it with both the M4 and the TLR. is the top mounted meter that much quicker in use?

using a scanner is a pain in the neck[/B]. Have the lab scan your film for you.

I'm worried about the pain in the neck part. I found digital printing a pain in the neck, but now I'm used to it and like it. Hope that might happen with scanning. Also, Costco will probably stop 35mm film processing soon and we are down to one photo lab in town where a bunch of hipsters turn out over-sharpened, hyper-contrasty scans and charge $15 for the pleasure.

Film and digital, contrary to the opinions of some, are NOT mutually exclusive. Having both bodies available gives you options. .

Film would still be part of my life, just not with the Leica and the Contax, so I agree that both can coexist. However, The M4 and some lenses would have to go to take the next step. I cannot finance the M8 with the sale of the G kit alone.

Use your time better.*
Have you cut back on TV or internet surfing?
More hours per week makes Photography easy..

I cannot ask my family to bear more of my time being dedicated to photography. I don't even own a TV because I found it a time-suck. But I do spend time printing, editing, and organizing images and that's something I do solo with the graces of the wife keeping the kids out of my hair. Fortunately the shooting part is a family affairs since wife and kids are 90% of my subject matter.

Photography is getting as much time as I am willng to give it. Other hobbies, like homebrewing, often get pushed off from one week to the next because of lack of time, and I wonder if scanning won't be another commitment that I'll push off.

It sounds like you like the idea of the digital workflow, if that's the case, film is always going to seem like a pain to you I think.

If by pain you mean "bigger time commitment" then yeah. However, one of the biggest pros of getting a scanner for me is being able to use traditional BW films, which I had to give up in favor of XP2 --which I also love-- when giving up the darkroom and relying on a processor that could only handle c41.