M9 to M240 (almost) to MP?

[63strat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My first Leica was an M8, then an M9. Loved them both, but just sold the M9 to get a new M240. In the meantime of about a month, I went back to film, with one of my Nikons. I'd forgotten how much fun film is, and really started to second-guess my plans a little. Nonetheless, I headed down to Samy's here in LA and tried out the 240. I don't exactly know why, but I came away feeling that the 240 may not be for me, and that I missed the direct simplicity of the M9. Yes the workmanship is impeccable, and the camera feels very fast compared to the M9, but I was bothered by all the extras. I didn't like the jittery live view, and don't have a need for video. I then picked up a new chrome MP, with a 35 chrome lux, and I was smitten by it. Such a simple and straightforward camera. I'm considering getting it and returning to film.

 

So, a few questions. I love the film look, but after getting used to the sharpess of the M9 with my 50 Summilux, will I be unsatisfed in any way? This I ask myself. I'd like to know if others have gone back to film from an M9 with any regrets. Digital is the future. Why do some of us like the grainy look of film, isn't that just clinging to old technology? (The other question is whether the smaller shutter knob on the MP is something I'll get used to, or whether I'll find it to be a hindrance.) Thanks.

Edited April 8, 2013 by 63strat

[sblitz]

Bought an M4 because I missed film after getting M9. Now carry both. Sometimes i will use M4 more BUT at night and in difficult light situations I always choose digital. As for quality difference? I prefer the look of film

[Advertisement]

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

[doolittle]

You do know you don't have to use live view or video on the M240 if you don't want to

 

If you want sharpness in film, you could use something like Fuji Acros 100. Or Adox Silvermax gives incredible detail, I saw some frames of it developed as a slide and it was incredibly sharp.

 

Then again the grainy look of higher speed films have their charms too.

 

For digital an MM might be something to consider. Or an ME/M9P and use the difference to pick up a used M6 etc. etc.

[Jeff S]

Digital is the future. Why do some of us like the grainy look of film, isn't that just clinging to old technology?

 

Film is not digital; two different things. But, aesthetic judgments are another matter. It's easy, for instance, to simulate grain (noise) in various software; LR, for example, has a simple slider. And some people who use film hate grain; they've learned tools (medium and large format, different films, etc), and techniques, to accomplish their goal.

 

People will continue to make different print rendering judgments regardless of the technology used, and that extends all along the workflow chain, including toning, papers, etc. There is no right or wrong, old or new, in that regard; that's what makes it art, not science.

 

 

Jeff

[63strat]

Bought an M4 because I missed film after getting M9. Now carry both. Sometimes i will use M4 more BUT at night and in difficult light situations I always choose digital. As for quality difference? I prefer the look of film

 

Ah yes, the one issue that blurs my decision. I like working in low light, hope I won't be disappointed with the MP over the M9 (not to even mention the M240). I do like the film look though...thanks for your input.

[sblitz]

You are welcome. Personally I have not found the m9 limiting at night unless I was trying to turn a night shot into daylight without flash. Look the new M is supposed to better than m9 for that and it should be considering its a new technology. Like you I shot with it at a photo expo and felt it wasn't for me. If I was earning a living from my shots, like weddings, a totally different story but I am not. In other words, no right or wrong just what's right for y ou

[63strat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Steve - did you mean to say the MP when you said you didn't find it limiting at night unless you were trying to turn a night shot into daylight? Thx.

[CalArts 99]

You might want to consider what sblitz is suggesting. The M4 along with the ME/M9 would give you both worlds. To sink big $$ into either the MP or the M240 would be an expensive route of getting you only the single option of film versus digital. A new MP is nice but a well cared for M4 is pretty much the same thing. And since you don't care so much for the M240 and "miss the simplicity" of the M9, then it sounds like this would be a much better idea. And if you find that don't like film after all, then just sell the M4. You won't lose $$ investing in a used film Leica.

 

btw, if you don't like the smaller shutter speed dial, then get the M6TTL. I personally prefer the smaller dial but only because I'm used to it.

Edited April 8, 2013 by CalArts 99
typo

[shootinglulu]

I lack abiliy/patience to master Veiwscan softwear w/Plustek scanner and that let my 35mm film photos down..I find Epson software w/Epson flatbed and 120 negs very easy and enjoyable to use and hence use MF a lot more than 35mm.

I plan on getting a good digital p&s in the future for 35mm but do prefer film and the Contax 645 is easy to use...The downside is that I'm not a leica girl any more:(

[wattsy]

The downside is that I'm not a leica girl any more:(

 

I thought you still had an M7, Lucy?

[hepcat]

I agree with the other posters who suggest having both a film and digital body. You can pick up another used M9 PLUS a used film body of your choice for less than the MP alone. There seems to be a great divide here where folks are either all film or all digital and seem to think that the worlds can't co-exist. They can, and do. I was out shooting yesterday with my M4-P AND my M8. My M9-P took the day off. The biggest benefit to me of film is that it's fun. That's it... it's fun to do film again. And it's nice that I have three bodies that all use the same lenses and accessories.

 

So, don't think you need to make a choice; buy what you want. There's something out there in your budget that will do what you want. Oh and BTW, that knob on the MP isn't the film advance, it's the film rewind. And it's no big deal. I prefer the tilted crank knob of the M4 but I've used the M2/M3 rewind enough to know that it really doesn't make that much difference. They both get the film back into the can... that's all that's important.

[plasticman]

There seems to be a great divide here where folks are either all film or all digital and seem to think that the worlds can't co-exist.

 

I don't think this statement is true, at all - as evidenced by this thread for example, where pretty much everyone is advising a mixture of film and digital. I would say that some exclusively digital users seem to see the continued existence of film as a personal affront (this is quite often grumpy old men who converted to digital after decades of using film, and who now want film to die as confirmation of their choice) but most film users are a tolerant bunch and an overwhelming majority of them use film and digital according to circumstances or even just mood.

 

I'd also advise the OP to stick with an M9 or M-E and use the spare cash for an M6 or M2. If the film workflow doesn't work out for some reason, selling the camera won't incur any loss.

[shootinglulu]

I thought you still had an M7, Lucy?

I sold my M7 recently.

[63strat]

Thanks to all for the suggestions. Rather than plunk down a lot of cash on a new MP, I found a dead mint M6 at Bel Air Camera, nary a scratch on it, truly superb, and at a great price. It's not the TTL version, but I do not plan to use flash at all. And after doing some comparisons, I found I do like the smaller shutter knob better. Put on my 50/1.4 lux and ready to go.

[sblitz]

have fun ..... when developing pay up for a full tiff scan (10mb or so) rather than the jpeg. you will find as much if not more info than in a DNG from an M9. for professional use, digital is a must, for hobby and art, film is a lot of fun and still very rewarding.

[63strat]

Thanks Steve. I will be doing my own scanning with an Epson V700, will see if it's a good enough scanner.

[63strat]

There was a problem with the M6, so returned it. Ordering a new MP, 20% brighter finder an added plus.

[wattsy]

Ordering a new MP, 20% brighter finder

 

Is it? I suppose it should be because your wallet will be 200% lighter. Have fun with your new MP.

[63strat]

Is it? I suppose it should be because your wallet will be 200% lighter. Have fun with your new MP.

 

Today I checked out a new MP side-by-side with a mint M6TTL (last year of production) and there was a most definite difference in viewfinder brightness. I'd say what Leica has said is true, that the MP is about 20% brighter. Hey, the way I look at, the MP is such a substantial camera, you can feel the difference over the M6, and it's probably a keeper for life. And, it's $2000 cheaper than the M240 I had on order, so I feel like it's a bargain!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jdsheepdog]

Today I checked out a new MP side-by-side with a mint M6TTL (last year of production) and there was a most definite difference in viewfinder brightness. I'd say what Leica has said is true, that the MP is about 20% brighter. Hey, the way I look at, the MP is such a substantial camera, you can feel the difference over the M6, and it's probably a keeper for life. And, it's $2000 cheaper than the M240 I had on order, so I feel like it's a bargain!

 

And the crazy thing is that the M3 viewfinder is brighter still. I have an MP and an M3 (and a IIIf.) I bought the MP after selling an M8, and the M3 has been with me for years. Bottom line, while the on board meter is a big help, especially with filters, deep down I think the M3 is ultimately the better camera. Heresy? Possibly, honest opinion nonetheless.