rick123 Posted August 29, 2006 Share #1 Posted August 29, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am enjoying the use of my M6 and D-Lux 2. I am "hooked" on digital photography with Leica now. I was wondering what the experienced forum members would recommend as the better all-around system - R9 with DMR or the upcoming M8. Thanks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 29, 2006 Posted August 29, 2006 Hi rick123, Take a look here R9 with DMR vs M8?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
gylee Posted August 29, 2006 Share #2 Posted August 29, 2006 I am enjoying the use of my M6 and D-Lux 2. I am "hooked" on digital photography with Leica now. I was wondering what the experienced forum members would recommend as the better all-around system - R9 with DMR or the upcoming M8. Thanks! Ah yes, chalk versus cheese. Presumably you prefer the film based M system or you would have gone with the film based R. I suspect the answer is the same in the digital realm. The M8 will be much smaller than the DMR (which I saw for the first time in the flesh recently - by gum, it's a monster) and if you already have M lenses, it seems like a no brainer to me. The M8 is also a new product and hopefully this will mean improvements in the digital side of things, like lower noise at high ISOs. Of course, one advantage of the DMR is that you can actually buy it, which may remain an advantage for some time. Of course you could always buy a Nikon Coolscan V, fill the freezer with Ilford and save yourself a fortune. My next purchase will be an M7 (or an MP - dang, I just can't make up my mind) - the M8 leaves me a bit cold. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted August 29, 2006 Share #3 Posted August 29, 2006 "which may remain an advantage for some time..." I wouldn't have though of 6 weeks as "for some time..." Better all-round system? Purely on image quality, any differences will be microscopic. Which leaves just the usual SLR-vs.-rangefinder choice. Big, heavy, but able to handles virtually anything (with enough accesories) vs. small, light, and with limited capabilities as regards long lenses, closeups, and hyper-accurate edge framing. (I'm going with the M, myself). "Of course you could always buy a Nikon Coolscan V, fill the freezer with Ilford and save yourself a fortune." Sorry - tried that math - doesn't work. Coolscan $1000 film for a year (Velvia) 160 rolls @ $8.50 per roll - $1360 processing of same @ $8.00 per roll - $1280 Gas driving to and from film stores/color lab - $170 Time to and from stores/lab @ $30.00 per hour - $3000 104 keeper images (conservative guess 2 per week) time to scan/adjust - 30 minutes each - $1560 Grand total $8,370. M8 $5000 accesories (spare battery/cards etc) - $800 104 keepers a year time to RAW process - 15 minutes each - $780 Grand total $6580 (and it just gets better in the 2nd -10th years). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gylee Posted August 29, 2006 Share #4 Posted August 29, 2006 "which may remain an advantage for some time..." I wouldn't have though of 6 weeks as "for some time..." Better all-round system? Purely on image quality, any differences will be microscopic. Which leaves just the usual SLR-vs.-rangefinder choice. Big, heavy, but able to handles virtually anything (with enough accesories) vs. small, light, and with limited capabilities as regards long lenses, closeups, and hyper-accurate edge framing. (I'm going with the M, myself). "Of course you could always buy a Nikon Coolscan V, fill the freezer with Ilford and save yourself a fortune." Sorry - tried that math - doesn't work. Coolscan $1000 film for a year (Velvia) 160 rolls @ $8.50 per roll - $1360 processing of same @ $8.00 per roll - $1280 Gas driving to and from film stores/color lab - $170 Time to and from stores/lab @ $30.00 per hour - $3000 104 keeper images (conservative guess 2 per week) time to scan/adjust - 30 minutes each - $1560 Grand total $8,370. M8 $5000 accesories (spare battery/cards etc) - $800 104 keepers a year time to RAW process - 15 minutes each - $780 Grand total $6580 (and it just gets better in the 2nd -10th years). I suspect that there will be quite a backlog on the M8 - assuming that it does get released at Photokina and there are already some in production, I would not be suprised if anyone who has not already ordered does not get one for quite a while. Let's see how many people actually have one in their hands in six weeks. I guess time will tell. On the maths, you may be right (and for professional photography, certainly right), but at least here in Hong Kong and for me (and I suspect most non-professionals), the numbers would favour film a little more - a roll of Ilford is about US$3.50, development is about US$2.50 (without prints or scans, but with a sheet) and a Coolscan V can be had for around US$600. Not being a professional photographer, I am not valuing my time at anything, and I can walk to the lab, so I make it around US$560 for the film (assuming the same 160 rolls which for a non-professional is probably more than is really going to be the case), US$400 for the processing and US$600 for the scanner, or about US$1560 in the first year and US$960 therafter, which means that assuming you already have the film body, you are ahead for the first four years. Of course, the less you shoot, the bigger the cost advantage to film. This ignores the depreciation on the M8, which I suspect will be significant (although if you can deduct that against income, it is less of an issue), and the time value of money on the capital outlay on the M8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter55 Posted August 30, 2006 Share #5 Posted August 30, 2006 M5 and 50 Summilux f/1.4 = $1,450 Plustek Opticfilm 7200 film scanner = $189 (rounded $200.00) 3 rolls Kodak 400 B&W $10.00 356 rolls = $3,360 ( I won't shoot 1 roll per day for a year so how about 90 rolls = Just call it $300 develope $2.15 each roll x 356 = @ $750 (90 x $2.15 = @ $200 scan 3 images per week x 52 = @150 @ 520 hours x $25 hr = less $ than Digital so I wont factor this. $1500 $ 200 $ 300 $2,000 for first year and $500 untill I can't get film developed for me. So I'll do it my self for same price. Well I just use Film and digital anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted August 30, 2006 Share #6 Posted August 30, 2006 I figure I get X many hours in this planet. I don't charge for those hours where I get to look at pictures and other fun stuff, but I DO charge for those hours spent looking at car bumpers or a blank screen while the scanner does its thing. But, sure - the math comes out different for different people. Since I figure cameras are for taking pictures - calculations based on saving money by NOT taking pictures seem counterproductive. Anyway this was supposed to be digital-vs.-digital, not film-vs.-digital. 8^) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick123 Posted August 30, 2006 Author Share #7 Posted August 30, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thanks so much for the expert input! I am excited to read the reviews of the M8, once it becomes available. In the meantime, I will continue to enjoy using my D-Lux 2 more and more (and probably my M6 less and less). I simply love having complete control in digital photography. The thought of "recycling" my Summilux-M 50mm f/1.4 (my only M lens) with the M8 is very appealing - I do miss using a viewfinder. I can only imagine how the pictures will look. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gylee Posted August 30, 2006 Share #8 Posted August 30, 2006 Thanks so much for the expert input! Rick You are too kind - I think we hijacked your thread! If you do get an M8, I am sure that you will love it. G. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pascal_meheut Posted August 30, 2006 Share #9 Posted August 30, 2006 I have the DMR and I do not consider it an "all-around" system: too big, needs a huge and expensive 15mm go get a 21mm. Also the need for precise focusing and WB to get the best results make it slower to use than the R8 with film. So I expect the M8 to be more an all-round camera, at least as far as a rangefinder can be. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sreidvt Posted August 30, 2006 Share #10 Posted August 30, 2006 Better all-round system? Purely on image quality, any differences will be microscopic. Hi Andy, Why do you think the differences would be microscopic? Best, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JHAG Posted August 30, 2006 Share #11 Posted August 30, 2006 To all this math, don't forget storage problem. Some years ago, David Hurn did the calculation film vs. digital. 165 rolls x 36 = a lot of hard drives and DVD's PLUS the uncertainty about the reliability of these PLUS future compatibility problems : try to open a picture file today with Mac OS 6 or 7 (both systems less than 10 years old… Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pascal_meheut Posted August 30, 2006 Share #12 Posted August 30, 2006 Why on earth would you want to open a today's picture file with MacOs 6 or 7 ? The question is whether you can open yesterday's pictures on today's systems. And the answer is yes. And BTW, if you want to measure the storage needed to keep pictures, stop assuming we keep them all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JHAG Posted August 30, 2006 Share #13 Posted August 30, 2006 Why on earth would you want to open a today's picture file with MacOs 6 or 7 ? And BTW, if you want to measure the storage needed to keep pictures, stop assuming we keep them all. 1. Meaning your always compelled to update. In the digital world of the forthcoming decades, you won't be able to shoot with the equivalent of a M3 — a 35 years old camera. Will the system file of my D2 be recognized by the Mac's of 2020 ? Guess. 2. That's a more deeply rooted problem. I agree hundred per cent with Hurn when he says it's a pity to delete pictures almost while shooting them. Time is essential in judging a picture. My first choices are rarely last. And I often pick forgotten pictures in a series which, at fist sight, seemed not interesting. I made a shooting for my last book some time ago, and I was not so glad with the photographer deleting pictures instantly. Efficiency versus reflection… Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pascal_meheut Posted August 30, 2006 Share #14 Posted August 30, 2006 Come back to the real world: 1) I'm quite amused by this obsession of shooting with a 35 years old camera. I have some old film cameras, I like them and sometimes I shoot with them. But guess what: having a lightmeter in the body is a good thing. On a SLR, having matrix metering, HP viewfinder and so on is a good thing. A lot of film format have disappeared over the years, a lot of camera cannot be repaired and a lot of progress have been made. So photographer have updated their equipment in a regular basis since the beginning of photography. If you do not accept the need, do not use computers, cars, TV, HiFi or anything that needs to be updated more often than every 35 years. 2) who talked about deleting pictures at shooting time ? We can work with digital files just like with film: do editing at home after the shooting, getting rid of pictures with obvious flaws immediately and taking time to select the best ones whilst keeping the second choices. So, really comme back to the real world where things are not as simplistic as "Efficiency versus reflection". I'm quite amazed to see how film addicts always end up by trying to feel superior. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted August 30, 2006 Share #15 Posted August 30, 2006 Johan: any calculation done "some years ago" in the digital age is antique. But you are right that storage counts for something. My storage: 3 x 250 gigabyte hard drives for double redundancy. One came in my Mac; two externals cost $400 total. They will fill up in 5 years, so an additional $80 per year. In 5 years I will replace them with 500 gig drives ($200 each by then or less) and go another 5 years. Then 1 terabyte, etc. etc. With triple redundancy and magnetic vs. dye storage I have no uncertainty at all - with replacement every 5 years I will always be adopting the newest connectivity. But again you are right that the problems should not be ignored - and I don't. Sean: I guess because Leica did so much RIGHT with the DMR in the first place. No physical AA filter already, so the M8 can't improve much on that score. 10 megapixels vs. 10.x - the M8 can't improve much on pure resolution. Thinner IR filter (so I hear) - but that simply overcomes some of the "RF lens" issues - I hope the M8 does not have the multiple reflections from specular highlights I got sometimes with the R-D1 and 15/21 lenses. I gather the M8 improves on noise at higher ISOs (but then you'd know that, wouldn't you? Ooops, never mind! - Just answer the way my Leica rep does to M8 questions - "Ya NEVER know...Ya just NEVER know!") Anyway - again, the DMR noise has looked just fine to me - ISO 800 B&W jpegs with less 'grain' than Plus-X scans, noise totally invisible at ISO 100. Let me ask your this - any reasons you know of why I should NOT think the differences will be microscopic (wink-wink!)? 17 days to go... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JHAG Posted August 30, 2006 Share #16 Posted August 30, 2006 Pascal, I'm quite an updater myself and I presently write these messages to you on a Mac 2 x 2.5 GHz and send it to you through an ASDL line. I'm not an antiquarian addict to 35 old cameras and love the automatic functions of my M7. The M3 example was just meant to point one thing to you : when I try to open some of my texts created 10 years ago on previous Mac systems, more often than not they're not reconized and I should use some tricks to recover it — which proves sometimes impossible. I don't care not being able to shoot in 30 years with today's cameras. I do care not being able to open pics from an outdated file format in 5 years from now. Besides, I don't necessary like to see what I'm shooting instantly on a tiny screen. You cannot judge a picture that way, even "obvious flaws" : how many obvious flaws in great pictures from great photographers (unsharpness, to name one) ? Last point : file storage. Files become more huge by the day, everyone can see that. And not a single manufacturer can guarantee you a perennial media today. As far as I know, prints remain the best one. If you want to be assured your files won't slip away, you'll have to print them — without any possibility to re-work them like you would on films. Regarding storage, I might be paranoïd, but I feel compelled to have my negs, to have them copied on a CD, and to have small proofing format print of every picture. Plus a second copy on a huge hard disk (which will be soon two) for redundancy and quicker access. That's a lot of precaution, I know, but I don't feel very easy with the idea of having everything on electronic media — and I don't think I'm the only one around, do I ? Ah, la vieille querelle des Anciens et des Modernes. Except that I'm both, I guess… Too old to be totally pixelled and to young to be gelatine ;-) Pascal, please, I'm not feeling superior at all. Do you feel inferior ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted August 30, 2006 Share #17 Posted August 30, 2006 In my opinion it boils down to the old question of whether you want an SLR or a rangefinder. Personally I much prefer a rangefinder, so I doubt that my Canon 5D will get much use if I buy an M8. Regarding deleting images, I only delete images of there's something seriously wrong with them such as wildly incorrect exposure - and shooting in RAW can recover some very poor looking frames - or out of focus shots. The weekend at Outlon Park provided many examples of those :-) So far this year I've taken about 4,000 digital frames, I'd expect that to increase with an M8 :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted August 30, 2006 Share #18 Posted August 30, 2006 Without wishing to plug any particular product... I use a ReadyNAS NV network attached storage box (Infrant Technologies) - 4 hard drives, RAID 5, meaning any one drive can fail and you can recover from information on the other 3, 1500Gb, enough for 60000 or so RAW images. And the cost? About that of a 35mm Summicron-M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted August 30, 2006 Share #19 Posted August 30, 2006 Hi Andy, Why do you think the differences would be microscopic? Best, Sean I'm hoping this means the M8 is a big leap forwards... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JHAG Posted August 30, 2006 Share #20 Posted August 30, 2006 Thanks Mark I was also considering the tape solution (Quantum) but it's not available for Mac. Hopefully some day the Microsoft Trust will collapse as did collapse the Allmighty Edison Trust in the 30's and beginning of the forties. Funny how their practices were similar to those of the Redmond Godzilla. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.