Am I certified crazy for considering the M-A?

[Ko.Fe.]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 hours ago, A miller said:

Some of you guys make it sound like these old film Ms can be found growing on trees of life or can be fished out of your local fountain of youth.  They are all crap shoots.  From fading VF lines and focus patches, to holes in curtains, to inaccurate shutter speeds, to faulty strap lugs that may or may not be available in the after market, to internal and external corrosion.  These bodies have storied pasts that you will never know.  Sure, you may get lucky and get a copy that works just fine.  But then again you may not, and if you don't it will be a huge pain the in ass to get it all sorted out.  I see it happen with people all the time.  

So 1200-1500 USD for a crap shoot M4 vs $3500 for a mint used M-A is a very fair comparison.  I think one can very reasonably go either way depending on the relative weights one placed on the relevant subject variables.

The M2 and M6 aren't even in the same discussion as the M-A.   

The M-A is like a new M4 with a more robust film rewind knob that is modeled after the M3, which is stronger, has less parts and is more reliable.

From time to time I get some GAS and, despite having a really good M3 and an  M7 and IIIg (and of course my coveted M-A), will shop around for M4s.  I honestly rarely, if at all, find a copy on eBay that I would be comfortable buying.  

I saw (in person) a really good copy at B&H last Sunday.  It had only one small ding on the front and had a brand new black faux snake skin and a good VF, but otherwise was represented as working perfectly. It was priced at $1200.  How do I really know where it has been, how many CLAs, whether it has had any major issues that the technician at B&H dressed up?  This was the best copy that I have seen in a really long time, maybe ever.  Don't tell anyone but I actually went back this past Friday morning to buy it - and it was GONE.  😂  Such is life, I took it as a sign

Of course this is all subjective and there are different courses for different horses.  But I just get the feeling that sometimes people place excessive weight on the continuing reliability and vitality of the old great Ms. 

   

Sorry for your bad experience or lack of knowledge how to buy used Leica.

I have purchased used M4-2, M3 and M4-P. They works.

Also, used M-A might have something you are afraid of. 

 

[Advertisement]

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

[A miller]

11 minutes ago, Ko.Fe. said:

Sorry for your bad experience or lack of knowledge how to buy used Leica.

I have purchased used M4-2, M3 and M4-P. They works.

Also, used M-A might have something you are afraid of. 

 

I don’t mean to jinx anyone and i wish you a lifetime of enjoyment and continued good luck with your used gear.  

It seems like for every good story there is a bad  one.  Just look at the posts in this sub-forum!  I thought my M3 was indestructible until a strap lug flew off a few months ago.  Now i am being told to baby it.   Oy. 

i think it also depends on how heavy of a user your are   I would imagine that many people shoot their old great Ms occasionally and don’t really put them through a great deal of wear and tear.  The old greats might be good for these people.   

 

 

[Ko.Fe.]

46 minutes ago, A miller said:

I don’t mean to jinx anyone and i wish you a lifetime of enjoyment and continued good luck with your used gear.  

It seems like for every good story there is a bad  one.  Just look at the posts in this sub-forum!  I thought my M3 was indestructible until a strap lug flew off a few months ago.  Now i am being told to baby it.   Oy. 

i think it also depends on how heavy of a user your are   I would imagine that many people shoot their old great Ms occasionally and don’t really put them through a great deal of wear and tear.  The old greats might be good for these people.   

 

 

 You are absolutely right,  even used M-A is much more fresher and less worn out.

I have to spend 300$ on my M4-2 gears ans service, after two years it was purchased for 540$, just because I'm heavy user and who knows how it was used before. And it will benefit from another 500$ of parts and service. 

M-A is very heavy on initial payment (even used), but in the long run it might be even with three times less expensive old film M. For real user :).

[SocialKonstruct]

I really love the concept but as a student I am relegated to my Leica M8. And someday the MP.

[sblitz]

13 hours ago, SocialKonstruct said:

I really love the concept but as a student I am relegated to my Leica M8. And someday the MP.

M4 or M4-2 should be cheaper than an M8 -- your real cost comes after purchase, namely the ongoing cost of film/developing/scanning/etc vs digital which is a one fee to get in, not counting the forever falling cost of SD cards. Film vs digital, comes down to how many rolls of film/year etc....with an M8 I suspect it is a tight difference. Up to you on how you want to allocate your dollars, but you will find the pricing fairly efficient -- meaning no bargains, it is an allocation issue only you can resolve.

[A miller]

21 hours ago, sblitz said:

M4 or M4-2 should be cheaper than an M8 -- your real cost comes after purchase, namely the ongoing cost of film/developing/scanning/etc vs digital which is a one fee to get in, not counting the forever falling cost of SD cards. Film vs digital, comes down to how many rolls of film/year etc....with an M8 I suspect it is a tight difference. Up to you on how you want to allocate your dollars, but you will find the pricing fairly efficient -- meaning no bargains, it is an allocation issue only you can resolve.

what he said, and also that - duh - film is better.

[otto.f]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 11/6/2019 at 5:05 AM, sblitz said:

M4 or M4-2 should be cheaper than an M8 -- your real cost comes after purchase, namely the ongoing cost of film/developing/scanning/etc vs digital which is a one fee to get in, not counting the forever falling cost of SD cards. Film vs digital, comes down to how many rolls of film/year etc....with an M8 I suspect it is a tight difference. Up to you on how you want to allocate your dollars, but you will find the pricing fairly efficient -- meaning no bargains, it is an allocation issue only you can resolve.

 

5 hours ago, A miller said:

what he said, and also that - duh - film is better.

For me film is not better on itself, only the whole analogue process is ‘better’. The final reason why film wins for me is the wet fiberbased print. All these papers, including the lower priced like Foma, have a nicer look than the best digital paper (and for me that’s Canson Baryta or Platine). If your endproduct is digital, screens, websites, etc. I don’t see a reason to go through film scanning, time consuming dust removal, etc. 
So if you want to compare apples with apples it should be AAA vs. DDD and then you should include the costs of the (proof!)printing of fiberbased prints.

Edited November 7, 2019 by otto.f

[wattsy]

32 minutes ago, otto.f said:

 

For me film is not better on itself, only the whole analogue process is ‘better’. The final reason why film wins for me is the wet fiberbased print. All these papers, including the lower priced like Foma, have a nicer look than the best digital paper
So if you want to compare apples with apples it should be AAA vs. DDD

Actually it's more complicated than that (or at least there are more ways to skin a cat than AAA or DDD). I agree that a fibre based print is generally preferable to an inkjet but there is no inherent need to use film to get to that particular end point. I have plenty of 'wet' fibre prints made from pure digital files (DDA) and also fibre prints originally shot on film but scanned/edited digitally (ADA). I almost always prefer the latter because, for me, it is the original source that is the key differentiator. For me, ADD or ADA beats DDD or DDA. I'd possibly even take ADA over AAA, depending upon how much retouching was required.

[otto.f]

How do you come from a digital photo to an analogue print then? So ADA or DDA?

Edited November 7, 2019 by otto.f

[A miller]

3 hours ago, otto.f said:

 

For me film is not better on itself, only the whole analogue process is ‘better’. The final reason why film wins for me is the wet fiberbased print. All these papers, including the lower priced like Foma, have a nicer look than the best digital paper (and for me that’s Canson Baryta or Platine). If your endproduct is digital, screens, websites, etc. I don’t see a reason to go through film scanning, time consuming dust removal, etc. 
So if you want to compare apples with apples it should be AAA vs. DDD and then you should include the costs of the (proof!)printing of fiberbased prints.

Well I was just trying to make a joke with my good friend, Steve

BUUUT, for me, film wins every time even in a hybrid workflow. 
 

 

[a.noctilux]

Film wins enough said 😇.

 

Never saw that people try to mimic digital with film in use,

and see so many processes to mimic xx film type by digital means ...

[ianman]

On 11/6/2019 at 5:05 AM, sblitz said:

Film vs digital, comes down to how many rolls of film/year etc

You need to factor in ongoing camera costs, which in a lot of cases I imagine would add quite a bit to the overall cost of having a digital kit.

[wattsy]

1 hour ago, otto.f said:

How do you come from a digital photo to an analogue print then? So ADA or DDA?

Most pro labs should be able to print digital files to C-type or other wet type prints. I forget the exact terminology/process but one of the brands used is Lambda and I think laser technology is used to expose the image on to standard light sensitive photographic paper.

Edited November 7, 2019 by wattsy

[a.noctilux]

Platinum printing from digital

this blog ( Monochrom to platinum printing )

Quote

In the past, they used the original negative from the large format cameras. Platinum printing is a contact printing, which means the negative has to be the same size as the print you want to produce.  Digital technology has provided us with the ability to print negatives on a transparency paper, which can then be used to make contact printing with platinum process.

an extract ...

" ... If properly processed, the print can last over a thousand years. "

[otto.f]

4 hours ago, ianman said:

You need to factor in ongoing camera costs, which in a lot of cases I imagine would add quite a bit to the overall cost of having a digital kit.

GAS excluded 😁 . The advantage of film is that GAS can be canalized and indulged in different films, papers, chemics and its endless combinations, which are all together lower costs than a new digital camera every 2-3 years

Edited November 7, 2019 by otto.f

[otto.f]

3 hours ago, wattsy said:

Most pro labs should be able to print digital files to C-type or other wet type prints. I forget the exact terminology/process but one of the brands used is Lambda and I think laser technology is used to expose the image on to standard light sensitive photographic paper.

Doesn’t sound like DIY

[otto.f]

Digital technology has provided us with the ability to print negatives on a transparency paper,
This is exactly what remains vague for me. Am I supposed to invert my images (for instance in Photoshop) from my Monochrome1 and print them on sheets, for instance the ones that were formerly used for presentations?

But ok, that’s his method, fine. But his argument that the Leica Monochrome provides the best tonal scale for this method is a bit strange. With a normal film negative you should have 13 zones too, depending on your skills of course. 

Edited November 7, 2019 by otto.f

[ianman]

45 minutes ago, otto.f said:

This is exactly what remains vague for me. Am I supposed to invert my images (for instance in Photoshop) from my Monochrome1 and print them on sheets, for instance the ones that were formerly used for presentations?

Good info here: https://www.photo-historica.com/digitalnegatives

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ianman]

4 hours ago, a.noctilux said:

" ... If properly processed, the print can last over a thousand years. "

I'll believe it when I see it!

[a.noctilux]

2 minutes ago, ianman said:

I'll believe it when I see it!

You'll see by then 😉

Not from me ...

[

" ... If properly processed, the print can last over a thousand years. "

]

...extract from this link provided ...