M9 Expected Life-Cycle

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Generally, Seiko-type blade shutters are available in consumer, 150,000-exposure and 250,000-exposure grades. Top-end pro cameras get the 250K shutters, top consumer cameras have the 150Ks, the Rebels (or similar entry cameras) get the consumer-grade shutters.

 

Those are mean numbers, though, and failure times will follow a bell-curve (perhaps skewed). So there will be some failures much earlier than the mean (and some 150K shutters that through luck go 200K+)

 

I'd guess the "slower" M9 and M8.2 shutters (1/4000th sec.) will have longer lives than the 1/8000-sec shutters - simply less stress at the lower speeds.

 

Blade shutters do tend to fail catastrophically - they "break" due to the high speeds and spring loadings and the ultrathin/light blades, rather than wear out with warning signs like the cloth shutters of film Ms. And in general it is cheaper to replace them than repair them, so all breakages are "total losses" even if they could technically be repaired. They are shipped from the shutter factory sealed and tested and it is MUCH cheaper for Leica, Canon or Nikon to just undo 4 screws and replace the unit rather than try to take it apart and rebuild it.

 

I would guess an M9 shutter on average is good for 150-200K exposures - but any particular shutter may lose it at 25K or 100K exposures, or happily go to 250K and beyond.

[Advertisement]

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

[earleygallery]

I feel bad here on this forum when

people have to question a posters word just because they feel what he or she is saying is an exaggeration. But, this seems to be the way it is.

 

I feel bad when people have to jump to conclusions about other posters intentions or put words in their mouths - I'm assuming you're referring to my query as to the high shot rate?

 

The use of the camera will have a bearing on it's likely life span, not just shutter actuations.

 

That said it seems to me that the OP is taking far too many photos, considering that he only has 300 keepers, and maybe needs to consider his approach to the subject a little, which will possibly save him a lot of time in editing and PP, and prolong the life of his camera.

 

We don't know what use the images will be put to of course, but that's an awful lot for anyone to look at.

[andybarton]

I find this subject interesting but I see that my original thoughts on this subject

were deleted.

 

There have been no deletions or moderations from this thread.

[jonoslack]

I wondered that too. I thought that I was being extravagant in making 229 photographs during my week long alpine holiday. (And 3 of those were not really keepers too.)

 

Wow Nicole

My heroine . . . for me it'd be the 226 which were for the bin, and the 3 that were keepers!

 

Hmmm - we just got back from 4 days in Venice - I took about 600 shots, and I think I've kept about half of those - but only used about 130 - sounds something like 1 in 4.

 

But 120 shots a day is nothing if you shoot every day!

 

Shutter lives seem to be shown in 'half lives' i.e. the average number of activations - I'd guess that the M9 would be around 150,000, seems about par for a decent quality camera, and probably that the electronic cocking of the shutter was less likely to cause wear than the old hand cranked method. I'd also think that if you shoot lots every day, then on average you'd get more actuations than someone who shot little (because it removes time from the ageing process).

 

I'd have thought that you'd expect to get at least 3 or 4 years before the shutter needs replacing (which isn't a catastrophe anyway).

[pklein]

I'm with Nicole on shooting volume. The most digital I've ever shot on a trip was about 600 shots on a 9-day vacation to Yellowstone National Park. I thought I was shooting everything in sight, often doing multiple angles or exposures of the same subject. But that's "only" 67 shots a day, or roughly the equivalent of 2 rolls of film.

 

When I shot film, the most I shot was 9 rolls in about the same amount of time, or 1 roll per day. So the convenience of digital has about doubled my shooting. I usually keep 1/3 to 1/2 of my shots, not because all are 16x20 wall hanging candidates, but because they are good enough and[/i ]meaningful to me.

 

When I do an event, like a wedding (usually as a favor to friends or relatives, not as a pro), it usually comes to 5-6 rolls of film, or about 300 digital shots.

 

I've had my M8 for three years, and shot a bit over 6000 images. Again, this is about double my average film usage. At this rate, my M8 may outlive me!

 

I don't know how people shoot so many images and still see anything. Or process them in their lifetime. But I've never been a "spray and pray" shooter. Perhaps the much-maligned digital M buffers and write times are an advantage, giving one incentive to consider things a bit more carefully before pulling the trigger.

 

--Peter

[charlesphoto99]

 

That said it seems to me that the OP is taking far too many photos, considering that he only has 300 keepers, and maybe needs to consider his approach to the subject a little, which will possibly save him a lot of time in editing and PP, and prolong the life of his camera.

 

We don't know what use the images will be put to of course, but that's an awful lot for anyone to look at.

 

Most National Geographic essays involve anywhere from 3-6 months of shooting and many many more exposures than this to be boiled down in the end to 20-25 shots. It all depends on the final output - most seasoned pros shooting editorial would say 300 keepers is way too many - edit it down more, much more. If shooting for a family album, alas, some think each and every shot is a "keeper." In teaching and advising my peers (and myself) I find editing is always the most difficult part of the photographic process.

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

High-volume shooting does not have to be "spray and pray" - and frankly, implying so is insulting.

 

"I don't know how people shoot so many images and still see anything." - Umm, because they are good at it?

 

Diane Arbus shot an entire roll to get her image of the "Boy with Hand Grenade" - http://www.photokaboom.com/images/tips/Arbus_Diane_Child_with_a_Toy_Hand_Grenade_in_Central_Park_contact_sheet_resampled_1.jpg It was the final frame.

 

Same goes for Garry Winograd: http://blacklab.visualsociety.com/files/2009/10/Winogrand-contact-sheet-950x811.jpg - which may explain why he died leaving 300,000 unedited images and 2,500 unprocessed rolls of film.

 

And Gene Smith, who shot 11,000 negatives over 6 months (with knob-wind Canons/Leicas and some 4x5) for his Pittsburgh Project: [Two contact sheets showing young adults and children reading and listening to music in a library, and African American children playing around street sign at the corner of Cowell and Pride streets, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania]

 

I'm willing to listen to someone mouth off about "machine-gun shooting" or "spray and pray" if their images, print prices, print sales, book sales and reputation match Diane's or Garry's or Gene's. Otherwise, they would do better to shut up and learn something from their betters.

 

I always shoot "scared" - i.e. I assume everything I've shot so far was - err - excrement, and that I'd better keep shooting to get something better. One reason why I leave "instant review" turned off and rarely chimp. Sometimes the 'best" shot is the first one - and sometimes the last one.

 

"It's a funny thing - the more I practice, the luckier I get" - variously attributed to Arnold Palmer, Gary Player and Lee Trevino

[bybrett]

Call me stupid but I kinda think that the term "keepers" is what you want it to be. I'm making a big assumption here and guessing that the OP didn't keep 300 and throw away 24700 shots I recently selected my best from a year of M9 shooting and came up with 96. Maybe someone else would choose 960 or 9.6...

[pklein]

Peace, Andy, no insult intended. Why respond as if I was talking about you personally? I wasn't.

 

I'm not a pro, I don't have to bring home a money shot from every job. And I usually photograph as part of what I'm doing in my life, not because somebody sent me there to "cover" it.

 

There are times when I will put away my camera or not bring it with me because I want to be fully involved in the place or event I'm attending.

 

When I said "shoot that much and see anything," perhaps I should have said, "shoot that much and *experience* anything." I've read of people boasting how they shot 2,000 frames in a 2-hour event, which is almost 17 frames per minute. And I wonder how they do that. Especially when they're not the paid pro who has to bring home those one or two perfect shots.

 

BUT... I don't think that the volume of shots one takes necessarily has anything to do with one's competence, one way or the other. And I do think that the DSLR's "umpteen frames per second" encourages some people to not "see," but simply to shoot blindly and hope that one of those umpteen frames was the perfect moment. We all know people who do that.

 

--Peter

[jonoslack]

 

When I said "shoot that much and see anything," perhaps I should have said, "shoot that much and *experience* anything.

 

HI Peter . . and Andy, my response to Peter's post was the same as yours . .

 

I find that my shooting is always better if I approach it 'lightly' - i.e. I shoot reactively, and without a great deal of intellectual engagement - I find my instinct is better than my intellect; almost always the first shot of a group is the best one, but like Andy, if it matters - I want to be sure. I think that's why I like shooting so much with M cameras.

 

I actually have 3 categories of photos - losers / keepers / users.

The losers (about half) get deleted, the 'keepers' about 1/4 are good enough that I can't quite press the delete button, and the 'users' are . . well, the ones that get used!

 

I think it's pretty superfluous to make judgements on people's quality on the basis of the number of shots they shoot / keep / use. I actually don't know how many I shoot . . .because I've got better things to do than count them, but wedding shoots seem to be about 1000 - and the last 4 days in Venice was about 500 FWIW

 

all the best

[Nicoleica]

Oh dear. I seem to have inadvertently started something when I mentioned that I tend to make far, far , fewer exposures than the OP.

 

I did not intend any slight or criticism of those who do make many more exposures. It's just a personal 'thing'. I used film for 40 years before I ever used a digital camera. I still use film now, alongside digital. When I was young, film was expensive, and until I was able to earn a living, my film was rationed. I was allowed 6 films a year, and so every shot had to count. This habit stuck, and even now, before I press the shutter release, I've done all that I can to ensure that I will get the result that I wanted.

 

As others have mentioned. The definition of a 'keeper' varies from person to person, and the subject matter makes a difference too. As does the purpose for which the photographs are being taken.

 

My photographs these days are almost entirely for my own pleasure. I tend to keep almost every image that I make. But I'm not saying that they are all good photographs by any means. I don't tend to make portraits very much either, so this increases the 'keep' percentage. (For anyone interested, the 3 non-keepers that I mentioned earlier were one where I accidentally pressed the shutter whilst dismounting from a railway carriage and have a photograph of rail and gravel at a very strange angle, one where I was photographing in a snowstorm, and a very large snowflake settled on the centre of the filter just as I took the photograph, and one where I was being a little over optimistic of my ability to hand hold a 500mm f8 lens at 1/30th second. )

 

I have found that I tend to make more exposures with digital, probably about double my film rate, but those old habits of being careful to never knowingly waste a frame, still kick in, and keep my usage down.

[gib_robinson]

Interesting discussion.

 

I do take MANY more images with digital than I did with film. With digital I often find my way into a subject while I'm shooting. . . . and looking at the LCD for composition as well as exposure.

 

Because storage is cheap, I generally keep about 3/4 of what I shoot with digital even though many of the ones I keep will never ever get printed or posted. Sometimes when I go back to look again; I see a sequence I initially thought had no value and find something worth printing. Often I learn something about what I was trying to do by following the sequence and seeing where I could have gone with it.

 

I think I learn way more from shooting digital than film because I am willing to photograph what ever I find compelling or even mildly interesting and explore the subject as I shoot without thinking about the cost per image. I shoot fewer landscape images than when I'm photographing people (especially when there are two or more people in an image) but I learn a lot from continuing to shoot sequences as the light changes and keeping the sequences rather than waiting for "just the right moment" to take one or two frames.

 

Honestly, I don't know any quicker way to learn than to photograph as much as I can, look at what works and learn from it. I have no idea how many images I've taken since I started shooting digital about six or seven years ago but it dwarfs the number of images I took from 1967-2002.

 

Lightroom 3 tells me I've taken roughly 5K M9 images since April of this year when I got it and that includes about 6 weeks when my M9 was being repaired (three trips, one replacement camera). I may have taken about 1K with my Canon 1D IV.

 

As an aside, no other camera since my first M2 has given me as much joy as my M9; but I doubt that comes as news to this forum.

 

--Gib

[MaxJ1961]

I've had my M9 since early April 2010, and I've taken 4,067 photos. I guess mine will become obsolete before the shutter wears out.

 

I may have missed previous discussions on this subject, but if not....

 

I am trying to determine the reasonable lifecycle of an M9, before one has to return it to Solms for refurbishment, or replace it. I have made about 25,000 images since receiving in March 2009. I expect that to be my normal rate of usage. I am primarily concerned about the likely wear-out period on the shutter. I realize anything can happen along the way, but assuming normal usage, would anyone have a guess on what one can expect?

 

 

Thanks.

jmb

[adan]

OK, Peter - I'll accept that an offhand comment can have unintended consequences. Actually - I don't know anyone who shoots at umpteen frames per second and hopes one frame was the perfect moment - but then there are several billion people in this world I don't know, so I don't claim my circle of acquaintances are representative.

 

Me, I shoot a lot in people situations because a good moment may turn into a better moment, or I may catch a good angle, and then see a better angle. I am always "learning" a situation as it develops.

 

It doesn't have to be for pay (the three photographers I linked to above were all working for themselves in those particular settings) - it can for fun. I LIKE capturing moments, and the more the better.

 

I guess the summary would be: overshooting may be a vice - but undershooting is no virtue.

[virgilius]

My new M9 went dead after 20 frames ... but okay, it is being repaired

[adan]

Uggh! - I guess you found the extreme left end of the bell curve!

[atufte]

Some 7 months of shooting translates to 120 shots each and every day on average if I'm right. How do you do that?..

 

What's strange about taking 120 shot's aday?, as a working professional this is nothing special, and

i believe i shoot even more than this in my daily working routine. Some days i shoot 50 exp, and some days nothing but other days i shoot several thousands it all depends on the job, remember some of us use this camera as a working tool...

[vinster]

A friend of mine got his M9 early 2010 and has shot a staggering 72,000 shots he does lots of air shows and reactments, Can do 3000/4000 in a day . He is prolific as far as i know camera hasnt missed a beat. He has just bought the P model as we speak or its due very soon. He has p/ex his m9 be interesting how uch he got or wether they would take it in p/ex.He is in USA at the moment.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Olsen]

I had a sensor cleaning of my M9 at Serviceproffen here in Oslo. They are the major Canon service here in Norway. Was previously the service department of Canon, now 'outsourced'. I regularly have my 1Ds III cleaned here too. The guy behind the counter said I could easily sell my 1Ds III since it had such low milage (less than 10.000 actuations) and new ones are impossible to get hold of. Many 1Ds III out there have reached the point where the shutter have to be replaced after 200.000 - 250.000 actuations, since Canon has no new model to offer, he said. Here in Norway a shutter for a 1Ds III costs 5000 NOK - (US$ 880 / € 645).

 

If the M9 shutter can be replaced to a similar cost: No big deal...

[ockie50]

I would say that a electronic/digital camera, such as the M9, has a longer "life" than a mechanical one. How can I say that? Well, I have experience of lots of cameras since 1960 and have had tanks like the Canon F1 and EOS-1. My EOS-1 from 1990 still works perfectly and this is an "electronic" camera. Even the LDC display looks like in 1990... I expect my M to last a "life time" and I think 150,000 actuations would be a piece of cake. A modern jetliner is an electronic marvel and I bet airlines expect a "life" of 30 years or longer.