michaelwj Posted November 25, 2016 Share #21 Posted November 25, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) @Martin B, of course volume dictates the tipping point. My point was probably more that the main reason for me (and others I know) to shoot film is not to save money, but the process and output. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 25, 2016 Posted November 25, 2016 Hi michaelwj, Take a look here Want to give Leica a try. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Martin B Posted November 25, 2016 Share #22 Posted November 25, 2016 @Martin B, of course volume dictates the tipping point. My point was probably more that the main reason for me (and others I know) to shoot film is not to save money, but the process and output. Yes, the process to develop and digitize film takes more time than standard post-processing of digital images. Biggest cost for film which wasn't mentioned is development of film in an external photo lab and not doing it yourself. Then cost adds up very quickly. It pays off quickly doing all film development on your own if you have the option to store some chemicals at home (friends of mine didn't want to do this just because of their small children). You also have much more control over the whole process than having it done externally. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
skucera Posted November 26, 2016 Share #23 Posted November 26, 2016 Errrmm...Why? Leica film cameras are a joy to use, beginner or experienced photographer. Just get any M6, align the arrows for exposure, match up the rangefinder and shoot, drop off the film for develop and scan. What could be simpler? If you don't like the experience (unlikely) you can always sell the gear for about the same price as you paid. If you do like it, get into developing, scanning, what not? Jaap, I suppose my attitude and my advice reflect the fact that I'm not rich. Buying anything as expensive as a used M6 and a Summicron just to try out film probably makes sense if you have enough disposable income to tie it up in such a costly purchase. I don't. I wouldn't recommend that someone do something I can't do. If you can afford it, I envy you that luxury. I wish I had your wealth. I do enjoy my M3, but I appreciate its qualities all the more because I have experience with other cameras, both film and digital. To know just how good a camera is, you have to see the bad too. I've owned some excellent cameras, and I've owned some bad ones too, but they aren't as bad as some of the cameras that family and friends have had, like Kodak Disc cameras. Scott Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted November 26, 2016 Share #24 Posted November 26, 2016 So if one wants a cheaper entry point to a film rangefinder there is always the CL with 2.0/40 Summicron, or a Bessa and Voigtlander lens. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 26, 2016 Share #25 Posted November 26, 2016 Jaap, I suppose my attitude and my advice reflect the fact that I'm not rich. Buying anything as expensive as a used M6 and a Summicron just to try out film probably makes sense if you have enough disposable income to tie it up in such a costly purchase. I don't. I wouldn't recommend that someone do something I can't do. If you can afford it, I envy you that luxury. I wish I had your wealth. I do enjoy my M3, but I appreciate its qualities all the more because I have experience with other cameras, both film and digital. To know just how good a camera is, you have to see the bad too. I've owned some excellent cameras, and I've owned some bad ones too, but they aren't as bad as some of the cameras that family and friends have had, like Kodak Disc cameras. Scott As you may have noticed I mentioned that the financial risk would be small, should one decide that the experience were not worthwhile. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin B Posted November 26, 2016 Share #26 Posted November 26, 2016 Jaap, I suppose my attitude and my advice reflect the fact that I'm not rich. Buying anything as expensive as a used M6 and a Summicron just to try out film probably makes sense if you have enough disposable income to tie it up in such a costly purchase. I don't. I wouldn't recommend that someone do something I can't do. If you can afford it, I envy you that luxury. I wish I had your wealth. I do enjoy my M3, but I appreciate its qualities all the more because I have experience with other cameras, both film and digital. To know just how good a camera is, you have to see the bad too. I've owned some excellent cameras, and I've owned some bad ones too, but they aren't as bad as some of the cameras that family and friends have had, like Kodak Disc cameras. Scott Simple solution which I also did: start out using an older film SLR camera (I have used a Canon FTb and Canon Rebel film camera). My first film to develop on my own was a Tri-X 400. I already had the cameras, just had to buy the film, developer, stopper, fixer, and a few containers for storage which is not a big investment. I shot a few more films with both cameras afterwards to make sure that I am able to do the development process proficiently. Then I made the jump to get a used M6 for a decent price in very good quality. As I pointed out in a different thread here, unfortunately used M6 cameras go for an increased price now in the market due to higher demand obviously. This is definitely a catch. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2016 Share #27 Posted November 26, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) How is the quality of scanned film, as compared to digital RAW images? This is a broad question to which there could widely different answers. Here is a thread called Go back to film? Sell the M9-P/MM? Wanna talk me down? that has many examples of M9/MM and TRi-X images shot with Leica lenses, as well as some differing points of view. _______________ Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spydrxx Posted November 26, 2016 Share #28 Posted November 26, 2016 (edited) I already commented earlier, but if you're determined to go with a film camera, rangefinder type, just to experiment with, there are a lot less expensive ways than buying a Leica, which is sort of like buying a Rolex just because you want to try a non-digital wristwatch. Don't get me wrong, I've owned Leicas since 1968 and obsessed over them occasionally, but I also own some mid 1950s rangefinders (without interchangeable lenses) which I learned to use in high school, and which today can readily be purchased in good working condition for about the price of two pizzas, and which can often compete with Leicas of the era in many situations. If you would like specific recommendations, email me, no need to clutter this site. I'd even be happy to loan you one for a few weeks if you would cover postage. Edited November 26, 2016 by spydrxx Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.