alun Posted November 17, 2009 Share #21 Posted November 17, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) ...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. AgXlove, Your last post adds a new layer of confusion to your original question, it seems to me. You started out -- perfectly justifiably -- trying to work out what makes the wiser investment: more lenses and darkroom equipment, or an M9. But you end up obsessing about what is considered 'professional' and by whom. Unless (a) you are a professional, or ( care especially what professionals think of what you do and how you do it, then this latest post seems with all respect a complete distraction.... Unless, of course, it is this aspect that has been bothering you all along and not the wise investment decision yo started out discussing..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 17, 2009 Posted November 17, 2009 Hi alun, Take a look here M9 or lenses for your film M: Which would you choose?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lincoln_m Posted November 18, 2009 Share #22 Posted November 18, 2009 If you have $7000 to spend I would go for the lenses instead of the M9, or some lenses and another MP. To be honest I'm finding the lens prices , even used ones, are going sky high because of the strong Euro these days. All you really need is an MP with 35mm f2, but even I have 2x 50mm lenses although I shoot 35mm 80% of the time. The 50F2 is very compact and the 50f2.8 collapsable even more so with a cheap price and great resolution. I've though a 50F1.4asph would be the ultimate but when shooting at f4->f8 I don't think I'd see much difference. The 24f2.8asph is supposed to be a good lens but in reality it might be used 5% of the time and now the used price is 60% more than 5 years ago when I last tried it out. I find it hard to believe that the lenses will continue to increase in price but they might be a good investment. A Hasselblad Scanner could easily use up all your money. I'd just buy more Fujichrome Velvia 50 and 100DL and spend the money on hotels with a fridge. Regards, Lincoln Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted November 19, 2009 Share #23 Posted November 19, 2009 It's all about the glass. But... You could always have a foot in each pond...either try scanning as mentioned above, or buy a used M8 (still wonderful results at A4 or A3 print size) and try the digital world before you go nuts on the M9. FWIW, I shot film for 35 years, and had film Ms and multiple darkrooms for the last 25 of those years. But, last year I moved residence and decided not to put in a darkroom. Instead, I took a risk on the full digital plunge...sold the darkroom and 2 M7s (but kept all lenses, except to make some lens improvements). To my surprise and delight (as a film lover and print maker), I don't regret any part of my decision. But, the learning curve takes a while (and so did the film/darkroom curve), and one needs to focus on clear objectives and results. This is a personal decision involving tons of variables, so I wouldn't presume to suggest what's right for you. Just what worked for me. Jeff PS I had a photographer friend scan some of my favorite negs so that I could continue to play with them in new ways. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahl Posted November 19, 2009 Share #24 Posted November 19, 2009 I have a suggestion: borrow or hire an M9 for a week. Use it extensively with your current lenses; then you can balance the convenience of digital with the long lasting satisfaction but ultimate cost of film. One further point: your Leica outfit is not an investment it is just the tool you use to make the photographs you want. It is such a pleasure to shoot with Leica that the financial burden becomes nearly acceptable. There are many worse ways of spending any spare cash. You can only make up your mind once you have used both side by side. If you then decide to go digital , don't feel apologetic or guilty, just enjoy your photography whatever the outcome. Alain. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thirdwheel Posted November 19, 2009 Share #25 Posted November 19, 2009 Hi, I can only say that if I were to buy a digital M, it will be the M9 as I want to use my lenses on their real focal lengths. And I also do not want to worry about buying IR filters and also coding old lenses etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_d Posted November 19, 2009 Share #26 Posted November 19, 2009 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. Pros don't think that film is amateurish. Digital is a demand of the client and a matter of good business and economic sense. For a professional photographer to turn images around quickly and to charge the client for post production fees that would have gone to a lab for film processing in the past is not being a "pompous techno driven stooge". This does not mean you can't be a professional and still use film, but you might have to be selective on the jobs you take on. If you are doing a long term documentary or shooting stock then film is fine. Although if your are shooting current news for the media you might have some trouble delivering if you are not shooting digital. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted November 19, 2009 Share #27 Posted November 19, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) [quote name=AgXlove;1123248 Film photography may be considered amateurish and the domain of hobbyists by many "professionals' date='" but such an assumption is not automatically valid. [/quote] It's just a misuse of the term 'professional'. Compare it to 'professional driver' where you take in every niche from taxi to Formula 1. Some people might envisage a professional photographer as someone who shoots for a local newspaper and has no option than to use digital capture, others envisage a photographer recording art works on 4x5" film as must be done to protect against post processing etc. As for money on lenses or M9, I'd encourage you to spend your cash on whatever will motivate you to shoot more. Lenses do hold their value better, but at some point you will step outside and take pictures. Some do that with a single optic. In my experience, little as that may be, it's not the cost of bodies, or lenses that's expensive in photography - it's the changing of one's mind. Nothing matches Olympus to Canon to Nikon to Hasselblad to Leica and back to Olympus. Until the digital revolution I used to say that the cheapest camera was the Hasselblad V, buy it once and lasts a lifetime. I admit I was wrong; because of digital. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpattinson Posted November 19, 2009 Share #28 Posted November 19, 2009 Since you mentioned HCB, you should reflect on his use of lenses - 35, 50 and 90 if I recall. As you pointed out - he did just fine. So - I would spend my money on the thing that will allow new options - and that's the M9. With the M9, and a small laptop, you can edit, submit, publish and sell images 'on the road'. You have no issues with transporting or sourcing film, nor stressing about labs while travelling. You can show and give prints or email jpegs to locals relatively immediately, which is always appreciated. I think you'd be best served to ignore the depreciation on the camera, assuming you intend to actually take a crapload of photos with it. My M8 has done well over 40k images in 2.5 years, it owes me nothing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AgXlove Posted November 20, 2009 Share #29 Posted November 20, 2009 AgXlove, Your last post adds a new layer of confusion to your original question, it seems to me. You started out -- perfectly justifiably -- trying to work out what makes the wiser investment: more lenses and darkroom equipment, or an M9. But you end up obsessing about what is considered 'professional' and by whom. Unless (a) you are a professional, or ( care especially what professionals think of what you do and how you do it, then this latest post seems with all respect a complete distraction.... Unless, of course, it is this aspect that has been bothering you all along and not the wise investment decision yo started out discussing..... My original thoughts were of what makes the most economic sense in terms of investing a given amount of cash in new equipment, not of what other people think of me in terms of my "professional" vs. "amateur" status. Such considerations really do not matter to me. David stated that in 2.5 years, he made over 40,000 images with his M8. To make 40,000 images with my MP and Tri-X, assuming I develop my own film, would cost slightly over $5300US. That seems pretty pricy, given that it is roughly 76% of the cost of an M9, which does not require that expenditure to make those 40,000 images. If I use Velvia 100, the cost for 40,000 images is slightly over $6900US for film alone, no processing costs included. IMHO, those numbers make the M9 look like a good investment - even if the value of the M9 will likely drop by 50% when the M10 is released in a couple of years. In terms of cost, the choice digital vs. fim offers us seems to be "shed gallons of economic blood up front, or bleed nonstop as you go along." The question seems to be which is less painful? Or which makes more sense? As I'm sure someone will point out, each photographer must answer that question based on the particulars of his/her circumstances. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
haris Posted November 20, 2009 Share #30 Posted November 20, 2009 Pros don't think that film is amateurish. Digital is a demand of the client and a matter of good business and economic sense. For a professional photographer to turn images around quickly and to charge the client for post production fees that would have gone to a lab for film processing in the past is not being a "pompous techno driven stooge". This does not mean you can't be a professional and still use film, but you might have to be selective on the jobs you take on. If you are doing a long term documentary or shooting stock then film is fine. Although if your are shooting current news for the media you might have some trouble delivering if you are not shooting digital. Yesterday talking about photography I was told that photographers hired by Samsung, one of leaders in digital technology development, use slide film for photographs of Samsung's digital products, even digital imaging products Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglouis Posted November 20, 2009 Share #31 Posted November 20, 2009 Don't know the answer to your question but I am seriously thinking of selling my WATE and buying an MP... someone really needs to talk me out of it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AgXlove Posted November 21, 2009 Share #32 Posted November 21, 2009 Don't know the answer to your question but I am seriously thinking of selling my WATE and buying an MP... someone really needs to talk me out of it. You'll get no help from me on that! The MP is the greatest film camera ever made, as best as I can tell. I can't imagine not having one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
clive Posted November 21, 2009 Share #33 Posted November 21, 2009 Within a week of purchasing the M9 you will wonder what all the agonizing was about. You will instead start agonizing about when or if to use the MP again! In September and after much such agonizing myself I bought a load of film and took my M7 on holiday to St. Ives in England. Wanting to travel light I left my M8 at home—big mistake and one that I’ll never make again. After you buy the M9 film will be over for you! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSU Posted December 6, 2009 Share #34 Posted December 6, 2009 Is digital definitely for you? Do you share your images via display prints or digital files, particularly on the internet? Do you have need for ready access to digital images, that is, do you have the luxury of time in waiting for scans after processing the film or having others do both for you. Do you shoot exclusively color or B&W or both? The M9 is what it is, the only full frame digital RF. If you need such and can afford it then why not. It is a real advantage to be able to change ISO ratings from one image to the next or shoot Auto-ISO. This obviously isn't a consideration for film. If all you want are full frame digital files then there is the alternative of scanned negatives. I would not purposely set out to shoot chromes with the intent of digital scans, the inherent greater latitude of color negative film compared to chromes has already been demonstrated. But a quality scan of a quality negative gives up nothing to an original digital file. I am very satisfied with color digital original files. I actually prefer B&W shot on B&W film. In June I chose to add a pair of M8.2's to my kit, I wanted digital original files. But this forced me to add the 28 and 75 Summicrons to my lens selection to emulate my full frame film preferences of 35mm and 90mm. Had the M9 been available in June I have to believe that I would have gone that route as the cost of the new Summicrons added to the cost of the M8.2's is a wash when compared to the cost of a pair of M9's and I already had both 35mm & 90mm lenses from my film kit. I don't regret having the M8.2's, I find them to be excellent cameras and the new lenses are a bonus for my film use. If you are happy with the lenses you currently have, get the M9. If you have a strong desire or need for additional lenses and are satisfied shooting film, don't get the M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted December 7, 2009 Share #35 Posted December 7, 2009 I would not travel with just one M9. All electronics have issues. Capacitors blow, cards go bad, batteries need charging etc. You will find NO local repair places. Therefore you need two or three. Without a history on the M9, I would say a serviced M is much more reliable. But then you need to depend on film processing. I know PJ who double or triple shoot everything and never have it all processed at once. National Geographic had film sent back as the job progressed and they processed it and allerted the photog if there was a camera problem. The film gates were notched so they could tell what camera the film was from. With digi you know if you have the shot or not and can make multiple copies to a portable computer, small hard drive or burn CD`s which you can mail home from whereever. Thus a perfect back up system using muliple systems and locations. Film has sensitivity to the x ray devices people feel they must use. Everyone want to x ray your film and damage is cumulative. The situation is a toss up. The x ray crap irritates me more than the digi foibles, so I would go with the M9 and back up camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jager Posted December 7, 2009 Share #36 Posted December 7, 2009 The film or digital question is always hard. They each have such unique strengths, while at the same time having significant areas of overlap. Do both, if you can. Were it me, the question of new lenses vs. a new M9 would hinge on how happy I am with my current lineup of glass. If you've already got the mainstream optics to cover most of your own shooting habits/preferences, and you're really sniffing around the edges of glass desire, that's different than if you have a major hole in your lens lineup. If you have a major gap, I'd lean towards addressing that first - especially as you'd still have that gap with the M9. If you have no such gaps, then I'd certainly consider the M9. I find it to be an utterly liberating camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.