Justifying the cost for a M9

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm trying to sort out the "luddite" argument from the "cost" argument.

 

Technology has been making skills obsolete since forever. A craftsman who spent a lifetime learning to flake flint knives was no doubt disgusted that those skills were made pointless (excuse the pun) by someone else with a hammer, an anvil and a chunk of metal. Think of the unfortunate swordsman in "Raiders of the Lost Ark," whose fancy technique with a blade (not to mention the talent of the guy in Damascus who spent weeks hammering out that blade) was made instantly irrelevant by a western slob with an ounce of lead.

 

 

Technique and skills count only insofar as they produce results. Once they fail to measure up, they are disposable. And I say that as a "disposee" myself - laid off after 25 years learning (and re-learning with each change in technology) the skills of a newspaper photographer, designer and editor. One adapts or one dies.

 

A hundred years ago George Eastman took photography out of the exclusive hands of artisans and gave it to the masses. And thereby separated darkroom skills from "seeing skills" and/or camera technique - a process pushed even further by the advent of color slides. By the 1960's, a Pete Turner or Ernst Haas or a host of others could make a career in photography without ever seeing the inside of a darkroom. "You push the button - let the Kodachrome lab do the rest."

 

Yes, "pushing the button" required its own set of skills - and still does, film or digital.

 

If anything, the digital revolution (including the hybrid film/scanning stage) brought BACK darkroom (or if you prefer, "Lightroom") skills to photography. At least for me - the ability to scan and print (and thereby control) my own color without the chemical mess was a huge leap forward.

 

As to cost or price: first, a used M8 is $2500 at most. We have one in the store right now for $2250. Where the heck does a figure of $6000 come from?

 

Speaking purely of cost - when I buy a digital camera, I figure I'm getting at least 5 years of "film" and lab costs as part of the price. For me, that works out to at least $6,000 a year, so paying $7,000 (M9) for $30,000 of results is a bargain, even if the camera is a worthless paperweight at the end of the 5 years (which of course it probably isn't - if one was awake and paying attention when the original purchase was made. )

 

One last point - while a really good 8x10 contact print of a well-seen picture can be a joy to behold, to claim that "there is nothing more spectacular" is ludicrous. Ever seen a 40 x 60 of a Nachtwey or Salgado picture? Or one of Haas' Kodachromes?

[Advertisement]

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

[theendlesshouse]

I too think the M9 is overpriced as was the M8 before it but my opinion matters not one jot to Leica who seem to be selling more equipment than they can make, a fact I found out yesterday when trying to buy a new asph lens. Which, as if by leica magic has just arrived by courier as I'm typing this!!

[StephenPatterson]

@erl Sorry I have poor tolerance toward people like that. OP has all the right to post and no one has the right to tell him he doesn't. Unless Admin or Moderator says so.

 

 

I still do not understand why the OP chose to post a rant extolling the virtues of film while denigrating digital photography in general and specifically Leica digital rangefinders on the Leica User Forum under the subsection for Digital Photography. That strikes me as analogous to someone who goes into a new car showroom only to shout at the top of their lungs how terrible and expensive the cars are. Not good form, IMHO.

 

I strongly disagree with the OP's position that with digital photography, "You can take a bad picture, sit at your computer and ...produce a masterpiece". Good photography is not dependent upon or rescued by the method used to capture light, it's dependent on the skill of the photographer.

[Ecaton]

I still do not understand why the OP chose to post a rant extolling the virtues of film while denigrating digital photography in general and specifically Leica digital rangefinders on the Leica User Forum under the subsection for Digital Photography. That strikes me as analogous to someone who goes into a new car showroom only to shout at the top of their lungs how terrible and expensive the cars are. Not good form, IMHO.

 

I strongly disagree with the OP's position that with digital photography, "You can take a bad picture, sit at your computer and ...produce a masterpiece". Good photography is not dependent upon or rescued by the method used to capture light, it's dependent on the skill of the photographer.

 

What he maybe tried to say is that modern technology allows to produce excellent quality files ("negatives"), and partly due to PP. However, the files might show crappy pictures, the latter being the product of photographers' skills and talents.