M9 or lenses for your film M: Which would you choose?

[Guest AgXlove]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The M9 is $7000US, which would go a long way in terms adding lenses, film & darkroom gear to my MP based Leica kit - and as a result, I'm wrestling with that choice.

 

Short of the new Noctilux, I could add any M lens to my kit, including the 21/1.4 (I have no interest in the Noctilux f/0.95, as I have a last version Noctilux f/1.0).

 

I like the new 18/3.8 (even though it is somewhat slow) and think it would pair up well with my 28/2 to cover the wide angle end of the spectrum. I think I'd go for the 18/3.8 or the older 21/2.8 over the 21/1.4 because of weight, size and cost.

 

On the long end of the spectrum, I have the 90/2 which I don't use much at all; therefore I can't see getting the 135/3.4 or the 75/2 (which would seem redundant, since I have the 90/2).

 

The M9 is still an attractive camera, especially since it will correct for the exposure vignetting of the f/1.0 Noctilux. Then there's the fact that there are no film costs (the price of an M9 translates into 1020 rolls of Velvia or 1846 rolls of Tri-X for my MP - alot of film, yes - but not a lifetime supply of either).

 

With an M9, I wouldn't have to schlep 100-200 rolls of film on an overseas photo expedition and fret about the effects of airport X-rays and heat - that is a big incentive. Still, $7000 - ugh...

 

It's like you pay a huge chunk up front and save down the road or you always pay (film, processing & printing/scanning) as you go along. It also seems as if the big attraction of the M9 is convenience and the instant gratification factor.

 

As I told my wife, the only way to not spend money on photography is to stop photographing - and that just ain't gonna happen as long as I have a heartbeat and functioning eyes.

 

So which would you choose (and why): An M9, or an 18/3.8 with viewfinder, a good enlarger & lens (about $1000 US) and about $2000 worth of film?

 

The applications of the gear in question is for documentary B&W and color travel, cultural & landscape photography.

 

Thanks to all for sharing your thoughts.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[dkCambridgeshire]

Have you considered a scanner as an additional option?

 

Cheers

 

dunk

[JosefSchachner]

Maybe also to see for additional M9 costs:

-cost of prints

-Memorycards (and replacing them regulary)

-A computersystem + backups of all your pics

-The pain of having a calibrated system of screen/printer up & running and keeping it that way

 

On the other side, if you have the glass you want/like/need, for 7k you can get some very very good darkroom equipment + a scanner + 18mm Lens and likely have some lunchmoney left.

 

Or wait 2 years, get a used M9 ;-)

[Craftsman]

I have an MP and if I had the money I would add more lenses. In my case the 24mm f2.8 and the newer or the 135mm f4. I would never spent $7,000.00 on a digital camera I can understand it if you have money to burn but A D-Lux 4 will do my digital needs just fine.

[hoppyman]

From your user name it sounds as though you are committed and happy to use film. I think you answered your own question.

If you want another lens or two go right ahead and enjoy! They will work with all of the M's now and future.

Incidentally you can also pick up a used M8 with the change if you'd like to add that option to your photography.

[Rolo]

If the deal is that you can keep the MP, I'd definitely have the M9, no question.

 

You have good lenses and you can add more later, but picture taking is of the moment and any good photographer can shuffle his feet to get a 'different' but equally good image.

 

There's a big risk that the MP won't get used much thereafter, but it's one of life's luxuries and the cost is not that substantial. If you spend money on more glass, you'll never stop wondering if you did the right thing....... if you're like me.

[JQ Huang]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Value:

Lenses -> appreciate

Digital M -> depreciate

 

i'll get my M9 after I acquired all my "dream" lenses.

[KCS]

Timely thread... I've been having this debate myself. The waiting time for an M9 is prolonging the decision. In the meantime I'm shooting more with my M6s and loving every minute of it.I've been toying with the idea of picking up a used noctilux instead of an M9. My DSLR does everything I need it to do when I feel like I have to go digital (kid soccer games, macro etc.). Digital is convenient, but it just doesn't look the same.

[jpattison]

AgXLove "As I told my wife, the only way to not spend money on photography is to stop photographing - and that just ain't gonna happen as long as I have a heartbeat and functioning eyes."

 

Maybe not even then (assuming the heartbeat is still there!).......

 

Photos by Blind Photographers - Photo Essays - TIME

 

John

[cliffp]

I would get the dream lenses now. The M9 might be available with a discount in 6 months time (maybe a little longer) or an improved version could be released.

[aesop]

...here you go:

 

1. Lens(es)
   
2. 5-star multi-format enlarger + killer 5-star enlarging lens(es)
   
3. 5-star multi-format scanner
   
4. Film
   
5. M9
   

Why? Simple - sumptuous tactile FB prints before pixels. Any day.

[DerekF]

There's a big risk that the MP won't get used much thereafter, but it's one of life's luxuries and the cost is not that substantial. If you spend money on more glass, you'll never stop wondering if you did the right thing....... if you're like me.

 

That's what I "worried" about when I got my used M8 earlier this year but I've found the opposite — my MPs still get used on a daily basis whereas I haven't really touched the M8 in over three weeks.

 

To the OP, all things being equal, I would spend the money on lenses. The M9 will only depreciate in price over the long term while lenses tend to keep most of their value. If worse comes to worse, you can sell one or two of your lenses in a year or two to go toward an M9 or whatever le goût du jour is.

[dave_d]

It sounds like you are desperately seeking a reason to buy an M9. If you are not shooting professionally and you don't need your images immediately I would stick with film. An M9 will have the added costs mention above plus you have to lug a computer around and deal with the issue of charging batteries if you are in a remote location.

[innerimager]

I have a similar consideration. I have an M8 and M7, and use both about equally. I am very interested in a 21/1.4 and certainly can't get both the lens and the M9, even selling the M8. I am probably not going to buy anything right now, but if I do, it'll be the 21 lux. This lens will get a lot of use on both my film and M8 bodies, I'm especially interested in the equivalent 28mm 1.4 it will give on the M8. After getting 1 or 2 years of use, the value of the lens will probably be about what I buy it for, while a used M9 will likely be 60% or so of it's current price, and I'll get one then.

[Adrian Lord]

I 'd spend my cash on lenses and travel cost to take the MP to new places to photograph!

[Guest AgXlove]

I 'd spend my cash on lenses and travel cost to take the MP to new places to photograph!

 

I suppose I am slowly coming to that conclusion, too.

 

Someone mentioned getting a scanner, which I have thought about. This scanner Nikon | Super Coolscan 9000 ED Film Scanner | 9237 | B&H Photo is affordable, but is said to have banding problems, which makes me wary of it. I also wonder how large you could go in print size before the quality starts to deteriorate. The Hasselblad 60MB drum scanners are the holy grail of scanners, but at $13,000US and $20,000US they are not even a consideration.

 

A photographer frined who works digitally and runs a portrait studio observed that "digital photography really is a money pit - the camera is just the bait. There are alot of other things you'll have to invest in besides the camera."

 

There's alot of truth that Leica M lenses hold their value or appreciate while digital cameras (even Leica M digitals) lose value as they are trumped by the next digital super camera.

 

I have noticed that there are still a fair number of portfolios published in LFI that have been created using M6, M7 and MP cameras. That's a comforting thought.

 

Still, I have to wonder how big of a hinderance being 100% film based would be for someone attempting to break into the pro leagues of documentary, cultural and travel photography, as I am endeavoring to.

 

I know of a lab AgX Imaging | Nature, Wildlife photos, Prints and Pictures Sault Ste. Marie Northern Michigan that uses a Hasselblad drum scanner to make digital files from film based images - they charge $10US per scan, which isn't bad, until you need to have 100-200 images scanned for a book.

[Nikkor AIS]

It's true that Digital photography has many cost on the back end. Put if you shoot heavy like I tend to, the cost of processing a thousand frames a day would put you in the poor house. Unless some else is footing the bill for film. On any given day I will shoot a roll of film maybe 2 with the majority of my work load being in Digital. (Nikon D3, Canon 5D2) Im using a Nikon 5000 scanner for my Film/digital needs. And have started to soup/print my own B+W again. I really feel that using both Digital/film is a reasonable solution. The kind of look you can get by using film is unmatched by any digital process IMO. That being said the low light capture's I get from my D3 and fast prime glass like the Nikkor 300 2.0 IF ED AIS and the Nocturnal Nikkor 24 1.4 D AF , 58 1.2 AIS give me an edge in the low light department. The ability to "chimp" for exposer , composition ..OO is something I would really regret not having if I went back to 100 % film. IMO having the digital makes me a better shooter with film. I no longer bracket and many times will take one single image, maybe two after working a subject with digital first. I know there are times when you only have one moment. But the fact that I have the digital captures with the D3 huge screen helps me even when I reach for a camera loaded with film. So my answer is get both and use what ever is in your hand to the best of your abilities.

 

gregory

[Adrian Lord]

I suppose I am slowly coming to that conclusion, too.

 

Someone mentioned getting a scanner, which I have thought about. This scanner Nikon | Super Coolscan 9000 ED Film Scanner | 9237 | B&H Photo is affordable, but is said to have banding problems, which makes me wary of it. I also wonder how large you could go in print size before the quality starts to deteriorate. The Hasselblad 60MB drum scanners are the holy grail of scanners, but at $13,000US and $20,000US they are not even a consideration.

 

A photographer frined who works digitally and runs a portrait studio observed that "digital photography really is a money pit - the camera is just the bait. There are alot of other things you'll have to invest in besides the camera."

 

There's alot of truth that Leica M lenses hold their value or appreciate while digital cameras (even Leica M digitals) lose value as they are trumped by the next digital super camera.

 

I have noticed that there are still a fair number of portfolios published in LFI that have been created using M6, M7 and MP cameras. That's a comforting thought.

 

Still, I have to wonder how big of a hinderance being 100% film based would be for someone attempting to break into the pro leagues of documentary, cultural and travel photography, as I am endeavoring to.

 

I know of a lab AgX Imaging | Nature, Wildlife photos, Prints and Pictures Sault Ste. Marie Northern Michigan that uses a Hasselblad drum scanner to make digital files from film based images - they charge $10US per scan, which isn't bad, until you need to have 100-200 images scanned for a book.

 

I have the basic Coolscan V and am very pleased with results from it but I am only an amateur enthusiast.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[gberger]

Hacving read Erwin Put's latest series on the M9 and comparing it with the Nikon D300, I's settle for the Nikon and one Nikkor lens and spend the sizeable remainder of the M9's $7,000 cost on Leica glass. (Disclaimer: I've been a film nut since 1937). Someone's next "New And Improved!" dightal body is being made even as you wait for the M9.

[Guest AgXlove]

Hacving read Erwin Put's latest series on the M9 and comparing it with the Nikon D300, I's settle for the Nikon and one Nikkor lens and spend the sizeable remainder of the M9's $7,000 cost on Leica glass. (Disclaimer: I've been a film nut since 1937). Someone's next "New And Improved!" dightal body is being made even as you wait for the M9.

 

...And that is the problem with digital cameras; it always has been and always will be.

 

It makes me think that $7000 spent on Leica M glass is money more wisely spent than $7000 spent on an M9 body.

 

Film photography may be considered amateurish and the domain of hobbyists by many "professionals," but such an assumption is not automatically valid.

 

It seems to me that only an uninformed, pompous techno driven stooge would brand pixel based photography the sine qua non of photographic professionalism.

 

There was a time when 35mm was reviled as amateurish - the era when that most rank of amateurs (Cartier-Bresson) worked in 35mm, creating his "amateur" images.