Leica M7 now discontinued

[Steve Ricoh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The thread has deviated somewhat from the original direction, but on the subject of analogue v digital, many of us choose film (in my case alongside digital) because of the aesthetic of film. I like grain but dislike digital noise, and for some reason I accept the need to spot dust from a negative scan, but it drives me nuts to have to spot a digital file. Probably, but unrealistic of me, because I expect digital to be perfect.

[Advertisement]

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

[Steve P]

Same here, Wilson. I shoot with an M6TTL and a Nikon FM3a. People often come up and chat when they see either of them. Never happens when I'm out with my  digital  Fuji. I develop my B&W at home in DDX or Ilfotec HC and I'm still thrilled when I hang the negatives in my bathroom and see the ghost-like latent images on the strip. Seems like magic to me! I scan with a Plustek 8200 and then send any good ones off to Photobox for printing as 7.5 x 5. I don't shoot too much colour but when I do I send them for processing and printing to AG Labs, here in the U.K. For me, seeing the photographs in printed form is the best thing of all. I wish more digital photographers had an affinity for the printed image. Sadly, I suspect the majority don't bother , and most of us who do probably started out in the era when film was king.      

[sblitz]

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

 

 

 

Yes, i get involved in more conversation, including airport security in Shanghai, when I have my M4, MA or R6.2 with me. Note they are all wonderfully mechanical (not counting the TTL meter in the R6.2 -- a really great machine, the R lenses I am less fond of) and can be and are used in all sorts of weather, including the water coming down from the splash/mist of Victoria Falls. I have my digital camera, now a Leica CL, which is great (not as good as the Q but more than good enough especially with range of R and M lenses) BUT whenever I get home its the film shots that draw my attention. I don't fool myself into believing I have the time to develop and scan and so, yes, it only takes a about a year or so before film costs more than the CL -- although the residual value of the M4 MA will hold up a lot better. Point is, I shoot a mechanical film camera because I like it better, don't need any more reasons than that, and I meet some very interesting people along the way. No young Sophia Loren type just yet :-) Just as well, I have a terrific partner at home.

[Michael Geschlecht]

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. 

 

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.

 

Hello Martin & Ian,

 

I understand that it is possible to save money by buying film in bulk, rolling your own & processing your home rolled film yourself. This is most likely not what the majority of photographers do. If you individually do this then doing so is a less expensive option for you. I was writing about photographers in general making choices between film & digital.

 

Many people do not roll their own film & then process it themselves. Many people buy film already rolled & then take it to someone to process after taking pictures.

 

I think that my estimate of 1/2 of a Pound, or 1/2 of a Dollar or 1/2 of a Euro per exposure is a reasonable number for the purchase of & the development of a roll of pre-rolled, in a box, film (But not including printing.) for many users.

 

Whatever the cost of a digital camera: Part of that cost is returned when that camera is traded in for a different model. The money returned should be subtracted from the original cost of the camera to determine the actual cost to the user during the time period that they have the camera.

 

If a person buys a new digital camera every year & trades it in for a new 1 the next year: Then the cost of owning a digital camera  per exposure made might be high. Even though that would have to be balanced by assuming that if the same person were using a film camera that they would be buying & selling a film camera every year also.

 

Alternatively: If you assume that the digital camera buyer trades in an old camera & buys themselves a new camera when their digital camera is no longer functioning or/& is repairable then the cost of a digital camera per exposure is lower.

 

If a photographer captures 100 pictures on a Saturday (Approximately 50 Pounds, Dollars or Euros cost for film & processing.) and does that every other weekend. That comes to 1,250 Pounds, Dollars or Euros a year. because that represents 2,500 exposures a year.

 

Many people who write on this Forum write about making 10,000 or more exposures in a year. That would be 5,000 Pounds, Dollars or Euros a year without regard to printing costs.

 

So, a digital camera does save a substantial amount in terms of money NOT spent to buy film & having it processed. Not including the cost of the prints, of course.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[Martin B]

Hello Martin & Ian,

 

I understand that it is possible to save money by buying film in bulk, rolling your own & processing your home rolled film yourself. This is most likely not what the majority of photographers do. If you individually do this then doing so is a less expensive option for you. I was writing about photographers in general making choices between film & digital.

 

Many people do not roll their own film & then process it themselves. Many people buy film already rolled & then take it to someone to process after taking pictures.

 

I think that my estimate of 1/2 of a Pound, or 1/2 of a Dollar or 1/2 of a Euro per exposure is a reasonable number for the purchase of & the development of a roll of pre-rolled, in a box, film (But not including printing.) for many users.

 

Whatever the cost of a digital camera: Part of that cost is returned when that camera is traded in for a different model. The money returned should be subtracted from the original cost of the camera to determine the actual cost to the user during the time period that they have the camera.

 

If a person buys a new digital camera every year & trades it in for a new 1 the next year: Then the cost of owning a digital camera  per exposure made might be high. Even though that would have to be balanced by assuming that if the same person were using a film camera that they would be buying & selling a film camera every year also.

 

Alternatively: If you assume that the digital camera buyer trades in an old camera & buys themselves a new camera when their digital camera is no longer functioning or/& is repairable then the cost of a digital camera per exposure is lower.

 

If a photographer captures 100 pictures on a Saturday (Approximately 50 Pounds, Dollars or Euros cost for film & processing.) and does that every other weekend. That comes to 1,250 Pounds, Dollars or Euros a year. because that represents 2,500 exposures a year.

 

Many people who write on this Forum write about making 10,000 or more exposures in a year. That would be 5,000 Pounds, Dollars or Euros a year without regard to printing costs.

 

So, a digital camera does save a substantial amount in terms of money NOT spent to buy film & having it processed. Not including the cost of the prints, of course.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

 

I agree when buying film roll-by-roll and spending $$ each time for development and processing, this adds up quite quickly. That's why I instantly went the other route as described and mentioned by you. Otherwise it would be a waste of money IMO - I was additionally fortunate that I got a bulk of well stored small and medium format films for free which I am still using up in parallel to 100' film rolls which I bought. And yes, when a huge number of frames is taken annually, digital has substantial advantages. Last Saturday I volunteered to take event photos of a rally against cancer, and digital was the only way to do this IMO - I took > 200 photos in a few hours (most of them turned out well) but with analog I couldn't have gotten as easily the main keeper shots. There are situations where I clearly prefer film, but this was not one of it. I used a DSLR which I originally bought in 2009 - I probably took about 40 000 photos with it since, and it is still going strong. I am using it whenever I need AF, flash, and a bit faster fps than my high res FF MLC (which I got in 2014 and still use as my main digital one) delivers. Bot digital cameras have paid off well for me since. In comparison, I got my used M6 beginning of 2016 and shot about 54 film rolls with it since - about 2 000 frames. I paid for my M6 about $1K at the time, which makes it now also about 1/2 dollar per frame regarding the initial camera body cost (not including other film-based cost as mentioned earlier). And I intend to keep my film bodies including the M6 for a long time - likely it will "pay off" for me as well as my digital cameras do (only that I will likely replace my digital cameras with a new one at some point - my DSLR I will keep also because it is likely going to be the last DSLR I ever bought). 

[colonel]

The thread has deviated somewhat from the original direction, but on the subject of analogue v digital, many of us choose film (in my case alongside digital) because of the aesthetic of film. I like grain but dislike digital noise, and for some reason I accept the need to spot dust from a negative scan, but it drives me nuts to have to spot a digital file. Probably, but unrealistic of me, because I expect digital to be perfect.

 

I would echo these thoughts

They are a different kind of photography

I like the aesthetic of film much more for people. The noise and limitations adding to the beauty

When I use digital, I expect it to be perfect, and to an extent I am schizophrenic here, in that when I use digital I only want the best, when I use film I am much more relaxed, about the actual film in terms of experimentation and the lens, etc.

Edited June 8, 2018 by colonel

[MarkP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When I use digital, I expect it to be perfect, and to an extent I am schizophrenic here, in that when I use digital I only want the best, when I use film I am much more relaxed, about the actual film in terms of experimentation and the lens, etc.

 

Well put.

 

I have come to EXACTLY the same understanding about my own photography. 

 

Edited June 8, 2018 by MarkP

[i8z]

Although I am sad to hear that Leica has retired the M7, I have really enjoyed the responses from all of you. I have shot thousands of rolls of film with my Leica M6TTL since 1998. I worry about the eletronics failing but I don't worry about it too often. I have never had an m7 but I know lots of users who adore that model. I am actually happy that the M7 has survivied as long as it has. Shooting film in 2018 is a real struggle if you don't develop it yourself. I live in the United States and each roll of film I have processed is making me question my continued love for film. My favorite labs are closing and I am spending more and more time commuting to the labs that still offer quality serivce. My digital camera is a full frame Sony Rx1 that is five years old. I love the images from the camera but I do not have the same connection to the photo making process that I do with a Leica M. I also own an M2 and several screw mount Leica cameras. When I take a great photo with a mechanical camera people I share the photo with believe that I am an artist. When I take a good photo with a digital camera it is assumed that the camera took a a good photo. All I did was show up and take the photograph. I believe the reason I still shoot film is I believe I am an artist. Perhaps not a great artist but an artist. Film or digital, I guess at the end of the day it is shoot what makes you happy. I am sure that the M7 will live on in the used market for decades to come. 

[gberger]

Due to increasing poor eyesight and the other ailments associated with "advancing senior middle age," my M7 and a Zeiss Ikon ZM camera are on the closet shelf.  I grew up shooting transparencies, beginning with the original Kodachrome in an Argus 3c in the late 1930s. I got hooked on transparencies and used Kodachrome and Fujichrome almost exclusively.  I never had the space for a darkroom, so B&W wasn't in my scheme of things. 

 

I went through a IIIc, M4, M6,  and a M6TTL before updating to an M7. The M7 became my constant companion until diminishing eyesight led me to get the Zeiss ZM.

 

 IMO, the M7 was the ideal camera for transparencies, as it could be used with AE, or manually with an exposure meter if the scene called for it.   

.

Why transparencies???  Because the post-processing is done when you press the shutter release, and transparencies can be viewed , via projection, in a large format. 

[Ko.Fe.]

Interesting, I was also using only slide film, because no space for darkroom and result was easy to see even just on 135 film. 

[wlaidlaw]

I prefer transparencies because they scan so much better for the ones I want to print. I have been scanning film since the mid 1990's, with all sorts of devices and I still have to discover the perfect "recipe" for scanning colour negatives. I now use a Leica SL 601 on a Leitz BEOON film copying device, with a Schneider-Kreuznach Componon-S 50mm lens and I can scan a whole roll of reversal with every one near perfect and totally in focus, in around 2 minutes. Then unlike many scanners, I have access to the RAW/DNG output with its wider dynamic range. 

 

Wilson

[stephen.w]

Meanwhile, the M7 continues to be listed on Leica's website: https://uk.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-M/Leica-M7

 

I feel sorry for the guy tasked with coming up with a distinctive bit of puff for each bit of Leica kit, but why would the company think of retiring something it calls 'the crowning glory of classic Leica M photography'?

[wlaidlaw]

Meanwhile, the M7 continues to be listed on Leica's website: https://uk.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-M/Leica-M7

 

I feel sorry for the guy tasked with coming up with a distinctive bit of puff for each bit of Leica kit, but why would the company think of retiring something it calls 'the crowning glory of classic Leica M photography'?

 

I just hope we get "Timeless" service for our M7's, so they can keep on taking "Timeless" photographs. 

[Martin B]

Meanwhile, the M7 continues to be listed on Leica's website: https://uk.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-M/Leica-M7

 

I feel sorry for the guy tasked with coming up with a distinctive bit of puff for each bit of Leica kit, but why would the company think of retiring something it calls 'the crowning glory of classic Leica M photography'?

 

Likely Leica has enough M7 stockpiled that they can continue selling it for a while. 

[pico]

Due to increasing poor eyesight and the other ailments associated with "advancing senior middle age," [...]

 

I think it would inform all of us to know that George Berger is in his Nineties. Bless you, George.

.

[anachronist]

Meanwhile, the M7 continues to be listed on Leica's website: https://uk.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-M/Leica-M7

 

I feel sorry for the guy tasked with coming up with a distinctive bit of puff for each bit of Leica kit, but why would the company think of retiring something it calls 'the crowning glory of classic Leica M photography'?

 

In the US it is still listed for information, but it is gone from the online store - if you click on the online store link it takes you to Leica Store Boston:

https://www.leicastoreboston.com/photography/sofort/m-system/m-cameras/?utm_source=Leica%20Camera%20Website&utm_medium=buyNowButton&utm_campaign=Retailer%20list&utm_content=us

[wlaidlaw]

If you are desperate for an M7 and have extremely large pockets there is this one https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/LEICA-LEITZ-M7-TITANIUM-BIG-3-LENS-SET-BOX-ULTRA-RARE-10572-752/132574796884?hash=item1ede12dc54:g:jT4AAOSwStdbGSUl  at a mere $227,000! Nothing like a bit of optimism. 

 

Wilson

[M9reno]

If you are desperate for an M7 and have extremely large pockets there is this one https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/LEICA-LEITZ-M7-TITANIUM-BIG-3-LENS-SET-BOX-ULTRA-RARE-10572-752/132574796884?hash=item1ede12dc54:g:jT4AAOSwStdbGSUl  at a mere $227,000! Nothing like a bit of optimism. 

 

Wilson

Marco has been holding this one for me for a few years while I round up the cash.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[wlaidlaw]

My most recent Leica transaction was a bit smaller - 3 black Leica logo'd PC flash connector covers.

 

David Llado of Leitax in Spain, my usual source, has run out so I had to go expensive and get them from Meister in Hamburg. What do folks do with them? I have never lost one but every camera I add to my collection of film Leicas, arrives without them. I suppose they might be a good item to 3D print. 

[M9reno]

My most recent Leica transaction was a bit smaller - 3 black Leica logo'd PC flash connector covers.

 

David Llado of Leitax in Spain, my usual source, has run out so I had to go expensive and get them from Meister in Hamburg. What do folks do with them? I have never lost one but every camera I add to my collection of film Leicas, arrives without them. I suppose they might be a good item to 3D print.

 

Meister in Berlin seem to be the only source (as far as I know) where you can order spare M6 and M7 battery caps online. I ordered a few some weeks ago.