"Vader" Certainly Isn't Any Prettier

[Agent M10]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, bags27 said:

well, dark room costs are significantly less now, with development-anywhere kits. A scanner is a fixed and reasonable cost. 

Again, I'm not arguing one or the other, because people's habits differ so widely. But if (say) you pay $7k for an SL2 and $5k for the 35 f/2 APO rather than $2k for an M6 and $2k for a 35 f/2 v. 2 or 4, you have to go through a whole lot of film to make up the difference.

The out-of-pocket costs may be less, but you also have to consider time and labor for developing and scanning. Personally, the price differential between an SL2/35Cron and an M6/35mm is worth it. 

[bags27]

4 minutes ago, Agent M10 said:

The out-of-pocket costs may be less, but you also have to consider time and labor for developing and scanning. Personally, the price differential between an SL2/35Cron and an M6/35mm is worth it. 

well, sure, to most of us. But time and labor is for some a labor of love. A chacun son gout, after all.

[Advertisement]

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

[Stuart Richardson]

Certainly. I run a lab, but only do processing and darkroom printing for myself these days (I stick to exhibition printing and scanning for clients), and it is certainly no small feet to take film images from camera to print ready condition in the digital darkroom, especially for 4x5 and 8x10. But for me it is time well spent. I think for most people digital makes more sense, and most film users I know also use digital for areas where it might make more sense. But my main point was that extremely expensive digital cameras do not really last that long in the scheme of things. My most used film cameras are a Mamiya 7II and Ebony 4x5. Both high end, expensive cameras. I paid around 3000 dollar for the Ebony and 2000 for the Mamiya. That was more than fifteen years ago now...in that time I have had variously a DMR, M8, M9, M10, S2 and S006...not to mention various other digital cameras. Though I sold most of these on to get something back out of them, I still took a big loss on every one compared to what I paid for them new. Film may be expensive and time consuming, but for us in the Leica realm, you would have to shoot a lot of film and keep your digital camera a long time to make the math work in favor of digital...

[bags27]

Can buy a Hassy 503 and good lens on ebay for around $1200. At these prices, it's very tempting to be "bipolar" aesthetically.

I like film for both the obvious aesthetic reasons but also to remind myself of the utter importance of how light falls into the zone system. Of course, it's not transferrable precisely to digital, but there are ways to "think zone" with digital.

Edited October 16, 2019 by bags27

[FlashGordonPhotography]

2 hours ago, tom0511 said:

Dont forget you will take much less but therefore better images with film.

Not me. My final digital images are way better. The ability to shoot, check, re-shoot has been vital to my learning and my composition technique. I treat digital like having a Polaroid back on my cameras. But without extra ongoing costs.

Gordon

[Tailwagger]

6 minutes ago, bags27 said:

Can by a Hassy 503...  it's very tempting to be "bipolar" aesthetically.

Not to mention geometrically given 6x6, though there is the 907x now, er... almost now...  Be a nice switch hitter with film and digital backs, though not diminutive. 

[Chaemono]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Digital gave me some keepers that film would have never given me...because I actually I don't know how to take pictures. 😂

[LocalHero1953]

9 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Not me. My final digital images are way better. The ability to shoot, check, re-shoot has been vital to my learning and my composition technique. I treat digital like having a Polaroid back on my cameras. But without extra ongoing costs.

Gordon

+1

My photography stagnated for much of my time in the film era (40-50 years). The times when it improved dramatically were, firstly, when I went to work in south east Asia in the early 80s and found I could shoot a film in the morning and get the results back in the afternoon, for negligible cost. I could see what I'd done wrong, remember how I'd done it wrong, and correct it, in 14 hours - and repeat the process with lots of affordable film. The second period of rapid improvement was with digital, and for the same reason: an instant feedback loop. A prerequisite for this sort of improvement, of course, is a highly critical eye; but it is the instant feedback that allows it to work. My digital images from the past decade are streets ahead of most of my film images from the previous 40-50 years.

[LocalHero1953]

While we're twiddling our thumbs and talking at random waiting for the SL2, the Sigma fp is on sale next week (25th). A few hands on experiences and sample photos and videos have been reported today (ephotozine, Photographyblog, cameralabs) but these are just anecdotal runs through the spec, not critical reviews of the IQ/performance or tests with non-native lenses. A few random comments: poor battery life (but can use smartphone-like battery packs), low light AF is not cutting edge. The interface looks interesting: elements of the TL2 touch screen and icons.

[bags27]

Waiting for the foveon Sigma....

[LocalHero1953]

9 minutes ago, bags27 said:

Waiting for the foveon Sigma....

It's a nice idea - but I doubt it will be good in low light.

[Tailwagger]

All I remember about my dark rooms days is basically nothing. It's undeniable that I did more sleeping than processing. Enlarging and printing was a huge amount of work, time consuming and really better suited to folks far more anal than I when it came to being methodical and taking notes. I admire those that can abide the discipline required for film, but while I think I'm reasonably patient, I'm just not that patient. In the end it's the message not the medium. Digital has made it easier for me to focus on the former and largely ignore the latter.

[bags27]

1 minute ago, LocalHero1953 said:

It's a nice idea - but I doubt it will be good in low light.

right. definitely not. a great landscape camera, I'd think.

Edited October 16, 2019 by bags27

[helged]

Just now, bags27 said:

right. definitely not. a great landscape camera, I'd think.

And a very interesting companion to the 'conventional' S1R/SL2 sensors. 

[Agent M10]

2 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

 But my main point was that extremely expensive digital cameras do not really last that long in the scheme of things. My most used film cameras are a Mamiya 7II and Ebony 4x5. Both high end, expensive cameras. I paid around 3000 dollar for the Ebony and 2000 for the Mamiya. That was more than fifteen years ago now...in that time I have had variously a DMR, M8, M9, M10, S2 and S006...not to mention various other digital cameras. Though I sold most of these on to get something back out of them, I still took a big loss on every one compared to what I paid for them new. Film may be expensive and time consuming, but for us in the Leica realm, you would have to shoot a lot of film and keep your digital camera a long time to make the math work in favor of digital...

Digital cameras last as long as you want them to. There are still those using their M8s and M9s, and some even DMRs. It's not that digital is so temporal. It's that most of us couldn't resist the evolution of the technology. But I wouldn't be surprised if more than a few decide that the SL2 will be their last camera buy. I'm expecting that it will be mine. 

[sillbeers15]

47 minutes ago, Agent M10 said:

Digital cameras last as long as you want them to. There are still those using their M8s and M9s, and some even DMRs. It's not that digital is so temporal. It's that most of us couldn't resist the evolution of the technology. But I wouldn't be surprised if more than a few decide that the SL2 will be their last camera buy. I'm expecting that it will be mine. 

Technically digital cameras can last but I not certain if it can be as long as you want? Rather I would say as long as the replacement parts are made available.

As for me, I would rather harness the residual dollar value of a high end digital camera by selling it off when the ‘replacement’ or ‘new’ appears and go for the next as technology changes so fast.

If I still have my GSM900 mobile phone, it might still power up when I switch on but it is good for nothing without appropriate network support.

[nicci78]

Ha ha it never meant to be a film vs digital argument. I still use both media. 

Just to point the fact that image taking cost is fully included in digital cameras cost, rather than being unlimited upon the film cameras cost.

For example you paid 5,500€ for a new SL 3 years ago. You sell it now at 3,200€. Total cost of usage 2,300€ for 3 years. Max cost if you keep it until the end 5,500€ + repairs. 
 

In the same time you bought brand new Leica M-A at 4080€  Sell it at 3000€. Lost 1080€ + 10€ per film developed (have to scan it by yourself though) Or 18€ per film developed and scanned in high res by the lab 

 

Price difference in 3 years between SL and M-A is 68 processed & scanned by lab films. Less than 2 rolls per month. Only 2500 images taken. 
In the same time the SL can take 15x more photos for the flat price of 3,200€ max. 
 

[bags27]

9 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

Ha ha it never meant to be a film vs digital argument. I still use both media. 

Just to point the fact that image taking cost is fully included in digital cameras cost, rather than being unlimited upon the film cameras cost.

For example you paid 5,500€ for a new SL 3 years ago. You sell it now at 3,200€. Total cost of usage 2,300€ for 3 years. Max cost if you keep it until the end 5,500€ + repairs. 
 

In the same time you bought brand new Leica M-A at 4080€  Sell it at 3000€. Lost 1080€ + 10€ per film developed (have to scan it by yourself though) Or 18€ per film developed and scanned in high res by the lab 

 

Price difference in 3 years between SL and M-A is 68 processed & scanned by lab films. Less than 2 rolls per month. Only 2500 images taken. 
In the same time the SL can take 15x more photos for the flat price of 3,200€ max. 
 

But you really don't need to buy a new M-A. A clean M3 for $1k will do just as nicely and last forever....

I think all math on this issue is highly contingent on too many variables. At the price of the objects we're dealing with, it's not a consideration whether one is more costly than the other. Whatever feels better, costs less.😀

Edited October 17, 2019 by bags27

[nicci78]

I just try to compare apples to apples. 
Otherwise we should compares used digital vs used film cameras. 
Same result. Digital one will win hands down the cost of usage. 
 

With the rising cost of used film cameras and of film itself. It is now less and less reasonable to shoot film. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[nicci78]

Fun fact. Shooting 24x36 film only compares quite well against Leica digital cameras. Against any cheaper brands, film will stand no chance at all in the cost of usage area.