Is it worth buying analogue in 2021

[ianman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

39 minutes ago, Ko.Fe. said:

Buy digital and ten years from now it might become obsolete without parts for service. But you will get lot more keepers during these ten years.

Really? Why? I’m not finding that at all in my own experience. I’d actually say the opposite. Bear in mind though that I have always shot digital much the same as I shoot film. Not like a machine gun, taking time to get a good exposure and composition for each frame. Trying to anyway

[Advertisement]

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

[250swb]

8 hours ago, Reactivestills said:

Please close this thread. Thanks to those who kindly replied with respect to a possible new owner of a few Leica Cameras -  I'm getting warning points now from moderators  - I'll close the door on my way out.  

I'm not sure warning points are appropriate, it's not like you are a troll (we hope. ha, ha). But you've asked for advice and then attacked people who gave a rounded response to your questions regarding servicing etc. There are other forums who will agree with you unconditionally straight out of the box. They'll say you need two or even three cameras to ensure that every year when you have one in servicing you've got a replacement. But this is a part of the bullshit agenda, on the same level as a new buyer gets a new second-hand camera and everybody says 'get a CLA' and it's just a knee jerk reaction from people who know f-all. There is a wide sub-culture of people who promote the idea that Leica cameras are fragile and prone to problems, and to be honest those are the trolls, and the majority of them while trading stories of doom and gloom have never experienced a problem of their own, they just like to stir the pot.

[earleygallery]

12 hours ago, Reactivestills said:

Let me find a few repair stories for you and I’ll post them here 

You seem to be trying to talk yourself out of buying a Leica (or two).

For a fraction of the price you could buy half a dozen Nikon FM bodies and a few prime lenses. If a body breaks down you can just chuck it away, don't even worry about sending it off for repair.

[raphael]

On 8/7/2021 at 3:50 PM, Stuart Richardson said:

As someone who has worked in the lab end as well, I would say the biggest threat to film is not really on the user side. Lots of people want to use film. The biggest challenge is on the corporate side, followed by the film services side. On the corporate side, modern film is a pretty intensive and finicky manufacturing process. It does not seem to be something that can be done easily on a small scale. We are pretty reliant on Kodak, Ilford and Fuji. Foma is there is well, and there are a few smaller companies, but really the best quality film is from the big three. The demand is still there, but distribution and manufacturing are challenges. Raw material sourcing has been an issue (such as in the decision to discontinue Acros and relaunch it as a product made by Ilford for Fuji). The other big challenge is that film basically went from a ubiquitous service to a niche market, and in smaller markets (like mine here in Iceland, for example), it has been hard to support companies who aim to do it commercially. There is simply not enough volume to do E6 processing in the country of Iceland...not enough people shooting it consistently and going to one place to have it done. So you have to do it by hand and in batches. But no company does it here because it would run at a loss.

Another challenge is in logistics. Right now, shipping companies will no longer ship most chemicals via air due to their hazardous materials policies, so it can be extremely difficult to move chemicals around outside of mainland US or continental Europe. Another would be hazardous materials regulations. Unfortunately, due to an over ambitious environmental regulation here in Iceland, fixer is taxed per liter of DILUTED chemistry. So a 5L tank of rapid fixer that costs 30 euros in Germany costs around 200 euros in Iceland. This makes film processing expensive here, which drives away users. That is probably the point, but you can walk into any grocery store and buy much much more dangerous chemicals for peanuts.

In any case, the hope is that consistent demand from users (which is absolutely there) will enable to find companies a way to keep providing film and processing. But if there are any hiccups, I think it is more likely to come because of external forces on the companies and labs, more than from lack of desire. Another example of this would be dye transfer and ilfochrome...photographers still wanted those processes when they were discontinued, but the companies were unable to produce them in the same way due to environmental considerations, and it was too small of a market to justify reformulating. I am a strong environmentalist, so I am not against these laws, but unfortunately they can sometimes disrupt things because our society is arranged around business...if a business cannot make money doing something, it is unlikely to happen.

I agree.

When Kodak was forced to file for bankruptcy they found out that producing and selling film actually is a profitable business.

However the machines are 20-30 years old. New machines are not produced, neither are spare parts.
Additionally the last film chemists are going to retire within the next years, and there are almost no young film chemists jumping on the bandwagon.

So yeah, the threats are not on the consumer or lab side, but on the manufacturer side.

[raphael]

FWIW, I sold all my digital gear. I'm all in film.
I shoot some rolls, send them to a lab, get my scans back. Done.

I can't say if it's cheaper or more expensive than digital, I also don't care. Digital can never give me what film does.

Film photography is my meditation in this high-speed digital world. It's a counterbalance. I'm enjoying it as long as the market allows.

[Matlock]

58 minutes ago, raphael said:

Additionally the last film chemists are going to retire within the next years, and there are almost no young film chemists jumping on the bandwagon.

So yeah, the threats are not on the consumer or lab side, but on the manufacturer side.

As Herr Barnack posted a while back " B&H photo currently has 188 different offerings of 35mm film for sale.  Freestyle Photo has 123 different B&W offerings in 35mm format and 294 offering in B&W chemistry with 41 different options in color chemistry and 93 different alternative process chemicals, 69 offerings in 35mm C-41 and 6 offerings in 35mm E-6. So I don't see your comment has any relevance for the foreseeable future.

[Vlad Soare]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, raphael said:

FWIW, I sold all my digital gear. I'm all in film.
I shoot some rolls, send them to a lab, get my scans back. Done.

I can't say if it's cheaper or more expensive than digital, I also don't care. Digital can never give me what film does.

Film photography is my meditation in this high-speed digital world. It's a counterbalance. I'm enjoying it as long as the market allows.

Just wait until you start developing your own film. That's an even more meditative experience.
Then why not make your own B/W prints? The moment you see the positive image slowly emerge in the tray before your eyes is downright magical. It's something you'll never forget.

I've been developing and printing B/W for twenty years, but somehow never had the guts to try my hand at developing colour film. I'm just about to do it for the first time. I can't wait.

Edited August 10, 2021 by Vlad Soare

[colint544]

On the servicing point, I think that the best thing for a Leica M is just to use it. Back in 1998, I bought a used M6 - a 1985 copy, with the Leitz red dot. I used it regularly until 2014, when I parted company with it. I know the current owner, and she tells me the camera is still going strong. 

So it was never serviced between 1998 and now, and likely it's never been serviced in its entire 36 year existence. The thing has been as reliable as an anvil.

On a side note, I paid £460 for that camera. Seemed a high price at the time, but clean M6 cameras are going for north of £3K these days. 

Edited August 10, 2021 by colint544

[Matlock]

4 minutes ago, colint544 said:

On the servicing point, I think that the best thing for a Leica M is just to use it. Back in 1998, I bought a used M6 - a 1985 copy, with the Leitz red dot. I used it regularly until 2014, when I parted company with it. I know the current owner, and she tells me the camera is still going strong. 

So it was never serviced between 1998 and now, and likely it's never been serviced in its entire 36 year existence.

On a side note, I paid £460 for that camera. Seemed a high price at the time, but clean M6 cameras are going for north of £3K these days. 

Well said. I get fed up with those who seem to think that their Leica will "self destruct" if they don't have it CLAd every couple of years. Unless there is an obvious fault, CLAs do more harm than good.

[oldwino]

43 minutes ago, Matlock said:

Well said. I get fed up with those who seem to think that their Leica will "self destruct" if they don't have it CLAd every couple of years. Unless there is an obvious fault, CLAs do more harm than good.

My 1957 M2 (I am not the original owner) had its first servicing this year. The rangefinder was ever so slightly out of calibration, and the viewfinder was a bit hazy. Everything else was still working great.

My 1930 Leica I was serviced sometime in the 1930s, when Leitz converted it to a II. I had it serviced again a few years back, as the beam splitter was on its way out. Other than that, it worked great  

Leica cameras can go a long time between services. 
 

I  not so sure that frequent CLAs “do more harm than good”, however, and they certainly keep the independent repair facilities afloat. That, too, is an important part of keeping film alive.

 

[Matlock]

48 minutes ago, oldwino said:

I  not so sure that frequent CLAs “do more harm than good”, however, and they certainly keep the independent repair facilities afloat. That, too, is an important part of keeping film alive.

 

A CLA by a competent repair facility is essential, IF IT IS NEEDED, but to send your camera in every few years as some seem to recommend is pointless. I think your experience with your M2 backs that up. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, colint544 said:

On the servicing point, I think that the best thing for a Leica M is just to use it. Back in 1998, I bought a used M6 - a 1985 copy, with the Leitz red dot. I used it regularly until 2014, when I parted company with it. I know the current owner, and she tells me the camera is still going strong. 

So it was never serviced between 1998 and now, and likely it's never been serviced in its entire 36 year existence. The thing has been as reliable as an anvil.

On a side note, I paid £460 for that camera. Seemed a high price at the time, but clean M6 cameras are going for north of £3K these days. 

So right Colin........I don't have any Leica M's from back then in London when I started in this game professionally, ( that was the mid' to late 1960's ), but I do have two Nikon Ftn 2's, a FE and a F3 still having bought them new at various times in past decades when they came out. With all of them I earned my way in advertising and editorial fashion work plus later some documentary and film work when I moved to the US working there for nearly 30 years before returning to Europe. The Nikons never skipped a beat, just cleaned at times after working in marginal locations and conditions perhaps but never fully serviced and they are still functioning pretty much perfectly. I was using the F3 today in fact.I also used Leica M2's back then as well, they too never let me down but unlike the Nikons they needed some deeper servicing a couple of times before I sold them on.........................Whereas all my digital M's, with the exception of the M10-M so far, ( fingers crossed ), have had to return to Wetzlar for one reason or another. The M10-D is still there on it's fourth trip since new, this time awaiting delivery of parts, don't they have stock of spares for recent cameras? I would have thought so, but maybe not.

Edited August 10, 2021 by petermullett

[ianman]

1 hour ago, Matlock said:

to send your camera in every few years as some seem to recommend is pointless.

I seem to recall someone saying once a year! Which is probably the same frequency at which the poor camera had a roll of film pass through it. 😱

Edited August 10, 2021 by ianman

[Danner]

I am a firm believer that regular M-camera use stays the need for CLA service.

[raphael]

5 hours ago, Matlock said:

As Herr Barnack posted a while back " B&H photo currently has 188 different offerings of 35mm film for sale.  Freestyle Photo has 123 different B&W offerings in 35mm format and 294 offering in B&W chemistry with 41 different options in color chemistry and 93 different alternative process chemicals, 69 offerings in 35mm C-41 and 6 offerings in 35mm E-6. So I don't see your comment has any relevance for the foreseeable future.

I was talking about chemicals and chemists for manufacturing film. Not for developing film.

[Matlock]

4 minutes ago, raphael said:

I was talking about chemicals and chemists for manufacturing film. Not for developing film.

Quite, and with the ever growing number of films available there is absolutely no chance of running out of either.

[John Robinson]

So long as cinematographers keep shooting 35mm (and wider) on feature-film sets (despite some of the extraordinary recent innovations in digital cinematography), there will be a supply of 35mm film (even if it's off-cuts from the short-ends on the Panavision magazines).  Feature films shot on film are made that way for the same reason as so many people on this forum prefer the look of stills taken on film to that of digital (M, SL, SL2 etc notwithstanding).  There is something about the way film responds to light that is just ... different.  Remember all those "toe and shoulder" diagrams we used to study?  There's a clue there.

When it comes to cameras, you can get the Leica look with R-series cameras and lenses, or with an M2, M3 etc and M-series lenses without breaking the bank.  As others have mentioned, it is possible to find the older cameras still working perfectly without resort to CLA.  In the case of my 1960 M3, the worst I can say for it is that there is a bit of shutter fade at 1/1000 or 1/500 but not enough to make me send it away, just add an ND filter and shoot at 1/250 (or pick up the R5 that goes to 1/4000).

Once you have some R- or M-series lenses, if you decide you want Leica digital after all, there are plenty of choices.  Some of the R-lenses are absolutely stunning on an SL with the Leica R-Adapter L.

[Vlad Soare]

10 hours ago, petermullett said:

The M10-D is still there on it's fourth trip since new, this time awaiting delivery of parts, don't they have stock of spares for recent cameras? I would have thought so, but maybe not.

You can thank the Japanese for that. It's their stupid just-in-time production model, which everybody was happy to adopt in order to reduce costs. We see the same (to an even bigger extent) in the automotive industry. Manufacturers order just enough parts from their suppliers to cover their estimated short-term production. This works very well as long as nothing unexpected occurs, but as soon as one link in the supply chain fails, the whole chain breaks.
The covid madness has generated, among other things, a massive worldwide shortage of semiconductors, which translates into a shortage of electronic components of any kind. It's still going on, and the end is not yet in sight.

Edited August 11, 2021 by Vlad Soare

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Matlock]

4 hours ago, Vlad Soare said:

You can thank the Japanese for that. It's their stupid just-in-time production model, which everybody was happy to adopt in order to reduce costs. We see the same (to an even bigger extent) in the automotive industry. Manufacturers order just enough parts from their suppliers to cover their estimated short-term production. This works very well as long as nothing unexpected occurs, but as soon as one link in the supply chain fails, the whole chain breaks.
The covid madness has generated, among other things, a massive worldwide shortage of semiconductors, which translates into a shortage of electronic components of any kind. It's still going on, and the end is not yet in sight.

So true. But, of course, on this forum it is much easier to blame Leica for all problems.

[ianman]

4 hours ago, Vlad Soare said:

You can thank the Japanese for that. It's their stupid just-in-time production model, which everybody was happy to adopt in order to reduce costs. We see the same (to an even bigger extent) in the automotive industry. Manufacturers order just enough parts from their suppliers to cover their estimated short-term production. This works very well as long as nothing unexpected occurs, but as soon as one link in the supply chain fails, the whole chain breaks.
The covid madness has generated, among other things, a massive worldwide shortage of semiconductors, which translates into a shortage of electronic components of any kind. It's still going on, and the end is not yet in sight.

This makes sense... a bit. But the issue is not the production line, which for the M10 I’m making an informed guess is largely over now, but the availability of spare parts which must be managed separately. I agree with Peter and would have hoped that they had a good stock of spare parts available for repairs. Anyway, we don’t even know why his camera is in for repair anyway, it may not be related to electronics at all.