Leica M7 now discontinued

[Anbaric]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for the replies. I bought my M6 from Richard Caplan years ago, in one of their previous locations. Lots of classic gear back then - I'll have to drop in again soon. I've bought a couple of bits and pieces from Red Dot, and they seem very good at listing stuff on their website, even small accessories. I think Peter Walnes supplied my Summilux. Good stuff from Aperture, Dale, and Peter Loy too, but I never seem to have used Ffordes.

[Advertisement]

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

[M9reno]

Hello Michael,

 

I admit I can only speak for myself as primarily a film user (though I also have a 240). The entry costs for 35mm film and developing are, in my opinion, low. The entry costs for shooting with any Leica M body plus lens are, in my opinion, high.

 

You may add to that the high cost of a Jobo processor, which pays for itself in the long run, but was purchased principally to give me full control over all parts of the film process.

 

In the end, for an amateur like me, it’s the price of an enjoyable activity, using wonderful equipment, with a long series of cost-benefit choices, and totally subjective from start to finish.

 

All the best,

Al

[wlaidlaw]

I see that in sympathy, Canon has stopped production of their EOS-1V film SLR. My concern is that this is sending a bad signal to film makers. 

 

Wilson

 

PS if you have 45 minutes to spare, this documentary on FujiFilm is rather interesting. 

 

https://video.toggle.sg/en/series/inside-the-storm-s2/ep2/475145 

Edited May 31, 2018 by wlaidlaw

[Lukas F.]

I see that in sympathy, Canon has stopped production of their EOS-1V film SLR.

From what I read Canon stopped the production of the EOS-1V back in 2010. Honestly I thought that they stopped producing film cameras years ago. Still, sad to see it go.

 

edit: Your link didn't work for me, Wilson. Just in case others have the same problem: https://video.toggle.sg/en/series/inside-the-storm-s2/ep2/475145

Edited May 31, 2018 by Lukas F.

[wlaidlaw]

From what I read Canon stopped the production of the EOS-1V back in 2010. Honestly I thought that they stopped producing film cameras years ago. Still, sad to see it go.

 

edit: Your link didn't work for me, Wilson. Just in case others have the same problem: https://video.toggle.sg/en/series/inside-the-storm-s2/ep2/475145

 

Maybe Canon just sold the last of their 2010 stock. For various complicated reasons involving settlement of a debt a few years ago, I ended up with a new Canon EOS-1v, unopened still in its box and an equally  new 80-200 f2.8 zoom. The zoom I sold easily for a good price but the best offer I got on the camera, which I took, was £80. They are ugly things with an unpleasant/non-technical half melted look but I am sure, very good. 

 

Wilson

[Anbaric]

I also had no idea the 1V was supposedly still available 'new'! I doubt it makes that much difference to film makers - sales must have been vanishingly small. For users, the main implication is that it sets the clock ticking on repairs, apparently available from Canon for 7 more years. You could get a lot more than £80 for one today - they go for several hundred £ on ebay (there seems to be a renewed interest in high quality film cameras in general). The F6 is supposedly still a 'current' Nikon, though I'd be surprised if any had been made recently.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello Michael,

 

I admit I can only speak for myself as primarily a film user (though I also have a 240). The entry costs for 35mm film and developing are, in my opinion, low. The entry costs for shooting with any Leica M body plus lens are, in my opinion, high.

 

You may add to that the high cost of a Jobo processor, which pays for itself in the long run, but was purchased principally to give me full control over all parts of the film process.

 

In the end, for an amateur like me, it’s the price of an enjoyable activity, using wonderful equipment, with a long series of cost-benefit choices, and totally subjective from start to finish.

 

All the best,

Al

 

Hello Al,

 

I understand your perspective & I am sympathetic with what you are doing. Please keep in mind that, even with the cost of the Jobo processor to the side: The overall per exposure cost for many digital users, as opposed to many film users, is most likely to be so much lower that: The overall costs for the digital users, even many Leica digital users: Will be below what they will be for the equivalent film users: Over the lifespan of a digital camera.

 

Math is math.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[M9reno]

Hello Al,

 

I understand your perspective & I am sympathetic with what you are doing. Please keep in mind that, even with the cost of the Jobo processor to the side: The overall per exposure cost for many digital users, as opposed to many film users, is most likely to be so much lower that: The overall costs for the digital users, even many Leica digital users: Will be below what they will be for the equivalent film users: Over the lifespan of a digital camera.

 

Math is math.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Hello Michael,

 

Maybe your last phrase “the lifespan of a digital camera” is key to your arguent? I would contend that the lifespan of an analogue camera, even the M7, is much longer. There are sections of this forum where the “upgrading” of digital cameras is an endlessly discussed topic.

 

Math is math, as you so correctly point out, but we must take into account the 2-3k spent by many Leica digital users every 2-4 years, as they follow the cycle from M9 to M9-P to M240 to M240-P etc, etc.

 

At this point burning through a mountain of Fuji Velvia on an M7 from 2002, or even two M7s, and even throwing in a Jobo processor and Nikon scanner for good measure (anywhere between 5-15 years old), is looking positively frugal.

 

So, yes, math is math, but the data are more complex than adding up the savings of each and every digital picture.

 

My original point is that we’re unlikely to find many potential Leica customers who sit down with a calculator, know that they would really like to shoot film, only to realise that it’s cheaper in the long run to pay almost £6k for an M10, for which they ultimately “settle”. I don’t doubt arguments like it are used to persuade sceptical spouses... but they strike me as the desperate clutching of straws by GAS patients.

 

All the best,

Al

Edited May 31, 2018 by M9reno

[Martin B]

Hello Al,

 

I understand your perspective & I am sympathetic with what you are doing. Please keep in mind that, even with the cost of the Jobo processor to the side: The overall per exposure cost for many digital users, as opposed to many film users, is most likely to be so much lower that: The overall costs for the digital users, even many Leica digital users: Will be below what they will be for the equivalent film users: Over the lifespan of a digital camera.

 

Math is math.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

 

I have to disagree with your "math". Well, your estimate is more correct when you compare film with a low budget digital camera for a few hundred bucks. But it isn't when you take into account a semi-professional MLC like Sony A7R III or even the M10 for thousands of dollars initial investment price. Let's go in my example for a used well maintained Leica M6 which was purchased for $1500. Now you need to take into account cost for film, chemicals, tanks, reels, film cartridges, and - to make it more equivalent to digital - a scanner. You can get a decent Plustek scanner for 35 mm film for $300. Film gets expensive when it is sent out for development - I recommend not to do it and to learn to do B&W, C-41, and E-6 at home. It saves a lot of money! Film development equipment, for example Paterson tank with reels is about another initial investment cost of approx. $150. Also learn to roll your own film from a 100' roll - each 36 frame roll of film will reduce the price for this film about 50%. With all the initial investment cost added to the camera cost in my example you are in the $2K range. How much film can you shoot now to make up for > $3200 digital camera cost - well, the difference is $1200 (I don't even go for the M10 price here!). You can buy approx. 20x100' rolls of film, where each 100" roll gives you about 20 film cartridges with 36 frames. All together 14400 frames. Assuming you are not a sports shooter where lots of frames are needed (you likely wouldn't use an analog camera anyway then), this is a lot. 

 

What I didn't calculate in is the time factor - here you really need to vest more with film. I assume that most film shooters these days enjoy doing the development process (likely less so the scanning process), so this is a very subjective question if this is worth it or not. 

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Everybody,

 

It would appear that I have not explained my point of view very well here so far.

 

Unfortunately I am about to "change into a pumpkin" soon & so I will have to try to explain things better later.

 

I am not being for or against digital or film. I am simply doing math: Each "click" of a digital shutter is around 1/2 of a Pound or of a Dollar or of a Euro that you can SUBTRACT from what you paid for your digital camera.

 

Just like a "swirly " light bulb at 23 watts in place of a 100 watt "round" bulb used 8 hours a day, seven days a week where I live saves a person $1.00 a month. Money in their pocket that they would have otherwise spent. I will be back.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Edited June 1, 2018 by Michael Geschlecht

[Martin B]

Each "click" of a digital shutter is around 1/2 of a Pound or of a Dollar or of a Euro that you can SUBTRACT from what you paid for your digital camera.

 

 

 

And this math is simply wrong. See my example above in case you didn't read it yet. It disproves your theory. 

[Jeff S]

I shoot roughly the same amount of pics annually with my digital cameras as I did years ago with film (I’ve counted). The amount (present valued) I now spend on digital cameras, computers and software (and associated upgrades), printer and supplies, etc exceed what I used to spend on film and darkroom needs. But the flexibility, convenience and time saving with the digital print workflow makes it worthwhile.

 

Jeff

[pico]

So, going digital is about buying time. No?

[Martin B]

So, going digital is about buying time. No?

 

I stated this above referring more to a non event-photography based workflow. You need to spend a huge amount of time when post-processing lots of digital files - then the digital advantage might be gone. But when I go out shooting, I might come back home with about 100 digital RAW files, so the PP is not too severe for which I need to spend time for. I need to spend more time to develop and scan one or two 35 mm films - darkroom time for making prints not even included in this balance. 

 

So overall yes, main advantage of digital - exempt from some "extreme" shooting scenarios as pointed out in my first paragraph of this comment - is saving time IMO. 

[Jeff S]

Not just time, but the flexibility of processing, beyond my darkroom skills. And that flexibility includes the addition of a color print option to my former b/w only darkroom.

 

I sit down a lot more now in my office ‘lightroom’ than I did in the darkroom, but get to avoid nasty chemicals. So some health trade offs, too.

 

Jeff

[M9reno]

Hello Everybody,

 

It would appear that I have not explained my point of view very well here so far.

 

Unfortunately I am about to "change into a pumpkin" soon & so I will have to try to explain things better later.

 

I am not being for or against digital or film. I am simply doing math: Each "click" of a digital shutter is around 1/2 of a Pound or of a Dollar or of a Euro that you can SUBTRACT from what you paid for your digital camera.

 

Just like a "swirly " light bulb at 23 watts in place of a 100 watt "round" bulb used 8 hours a day, seven days a week where I live saves a person $1.00 a month. Money in their pocket that they would have otherwise spent. I will be back.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Hello Michael,

 

Thank you. Don’t worry: I understand your point.

 

Where we differ is that you are highlighting a theoretical advantage of digital ownership, while I am sceptical that works like that in practice.

 

Especially in relation to a brand (Leica) where cost often takes a back seat to a number of other priorities, including psychological factors (e.g. enjoyment) or sociological ones (e.g. class differentiation, conspicuous consumption - or intentional waste, for the few who buy a Leica as ‘male jewelry’).

 

But, yes, I agree that energy-saving light bulbs save energy.

 

Best wishes,

Al

[wattsy]

Hello Everybody,

 

It would appear that I have not explained my point of view very well here so far.

 

Unfortunately I am about to "change into a pumpkin" soon & so I will have to try to explain things better later.

 

Your point is easy enough to understand. Not all of us agree with it, however. There are many factors at play when comparing the economics of using film or digital and the simplistic analysis based on a "cost per click" rarely takes these into account.

[Lukas F.]

If true, it's a strange way to communicate with one's customers: through rumour sites and the holdings of third party retailers.

 

A few years back I ordered a M7 through the a la carte program. I see that one can still do so (for now): https://a-la-carte-configurator.leica-camera.com/?lang=en&DEF=definitions_UK

 

It's also still listed on Leica's website: https://uk.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-M/Leica-M7

Apparently the M7 isn't available through the à la carte program anymore. Weinlamm mentioned that in the corresponding German thread. Clicking on the link you provided one can see it's true. Sad. Edited June 1, 2018 by Lukas F.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Steve P]

I like shooting film. I'm happy to pay a bit extra over digital in order to keep doing it. Maths is maths, but it ain't everything!

[wlaidlaw]

Using film cameras is not really a logical choice but it just like the joy of driving old cars in the modern world - it's fun. I have never had anyone smile at me in my modern Porsche but I get people waving and smiling when I go by in my three wheel Morgan. That is probably why the autofocus all automatic film cameras have disappeared, while Leica is still continuing, at least with the two less mechanised of its film cameras, the M-P and M-A. There is a greater sense of achievement when you take a good photo with a wholly manual film camera, especially when you have processed the film yourself. I do my own B&W using HQ free Rodinal but not colour as all the C41 and E6 processing kits contain Hydroquinone, to which I am quite allergic. However I do scan with a Leitz BEOON myself and do my own printing on an Epson Stylus Pro 3880, which is a marvellous printer and up to A2 size. 

 

Wilson