New Thread - M 8 for professional use

[Skippy Sanchez]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yup, for newspaper work. When I need DSLRs (long lenses, flash, etc.), I use DSLRs, which the company provides. When I need unobtrusiveness, quietness (more or less), available light, etc., I use my M8s w/glass from 15mm > 135mm, but mostly 21, 28, 40, and 90mm.

 

Range finders and SLRs are just different tools for different jobs.

[Advertisement]

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

[mat_mcdermott]

There are actually several issues here. For one thing, you are now providing clients with images that are basically ready to be sized and printed. They no longer have to have expensive scans done, so you are saving them time and money at their end. This should be worth more--not less. Additionally, you are likely replacing your digital cameras every two years, if you're lucky. Film cameras were not only less costly, but had a significantly longer useful life. Finally, you are now spending considerable time staring at a computer whereas with film, you simply dropped it at the lab, picked it up and did a quick edit.

 

I agree entirely.

 

Shooting digitally means I'm doing a lot more work for a shoot that when I was shooting film other people (labs) were doing for me. If at the end of a day in the field (most of the work I get paid to do is documentation of public parks, housing developments, engineering projects) after shooting several gigs of photos, I still have a couple hours of work ahead of me--and that's with actions automating as much of the procedure as possible. Granted I can do this work in the comfort of my home with a beer sitting next to me, but it's work that has to be done nonetheless.

 

And as you point out the upfront costs for digital capture are considerably higher, not to mention reoccuring more frequently.

 

I charge more now that I'm shooting digitally than when I was shooting film. I'm doing more work and my equipment costs are higher, why not?

[JHAG]

If you are cutting your rates for doing digital capture, you are cutting your own throat at the same time.

 

Insane? Perhaps not. Dumb? Unquestionably.

 

I repeat, this is not an exercise, repeat, this is not…

"I just propose to some clients (young designers / students, etc.)

a simplified digital work — still quality, but at a lower cost.";)

[Printmaker]

I agree entirely.

I charge more now that I'm shooting digitally than when I was shooting film. I'm doing more work and my equipment costs are higher, why not?

 

I know we're getting a bit off topic but most working pros charge more for digital. In my own case, I can photograph a painting or object, comp it into an ad or page layout and proof it while my customer waits. The whole process takes an hour or two and costs the customer $200 - $500. When I was shooting film my rate was half as expensive but the end cost to the customer was $600 - $900 for the same job. And I would be lucky to get the job done in a day. So, yes, by all means charge more for your time!

And, to beat this horse to death, my old studio (1980s) required hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gear (Crosfield and Hell scanners, type setters, vacuum tables, chromaline proofing, film processors, E6 lines, etc.) and 6 employees to make it all work. These days I do it all myself with a few cameras, computers and printers - about 20% of the old investment. So the equipment cost for me is lower, there is little to no waste, and my bottom line is far better.

So yes, charge more!

A more useful topic would be "what is your rate?" For example my studio rate is $200 per hour.

 

Tom

[JHAG]

A more useful topic would be "what is your rate?" For example my studio rate is $200 per hour.

 

Tom

 

Shall we launch it ?

Who will ? You ? Me ?

So, new question in the same topic : What is your rate ?

[sisoje]

Ola from Panama!

 

I am here this week on the video/stock assignment. My digital Kit is 2 x M8s, Leica lenses: 24, 35, 50, 75, 90 and the little CV15. So far, no problems. It is nice to have a small and "ugly" camera around the neck and the other one on the shoulder and walk the busy streets of Panama City or Colon. Everybody looks at me like I am a regular tourist. Except the regular quirks (lousy battery life, occasional review skip,...) all is in order so far. For my style of shooting on travel, this system is so handy. I hope I will have some nice samples to show, next week when I come back.

Stay tunned...

[lxlim]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi there,

 

1DmkIII/IIN for fast paced coverage, extreme low light, rapidly changing light conditions and pocket wizard remote triggered situations. 17 to 200mm (zooms and primes, 10 lenses). Banging up the Canons didn't seem such a big deal as banging up the M8 as we have an excellent Canon service centre here.

 

2 M8s, 16 to 135mm with a gap at the 24mm (8 lenses in total, 3 CVs and 4 leicas). For big enlargements, precise and slow paced work that requires setup. Have used it for concert rehearsals in low light in a rapidly changing environment and the huge advantage is the range finder. Weight and no anti-aliased filter is the other advantages.

 

Sensor is a little short of the 1DmkIII's performance at ISO 800 but I won't consider that a complaint on my part. If you don't compare you won't even notice the difference as it is not a big difference.

 

Alex

[KM-25]

I use my M8 for about 10-20% of my pro work. I use it for editorial and some advertising, pulled a $6,500 exclusive use stock sale today off an image made with it. I had to uprezz it to 25 inches wide at 300DPI so I massaged it out of C1 and it honestly looked great, them's er' good pixels in that thar' M8!

 

Another 50-60% of my work is with the D3 /D300. That system is outstanding, I used it all night tonight at the ESPN Winter X-Games and the D3 was simply incredible!!

 

And finally the other 20-40% of my work is on film so it is mostly the brilliant 500 C/M and that host of glass and backs. There are some things you just can't do with digital w/o spending a whole lot of time in front a computer which I avoid like the plague.

 

Tomorrow, it is a big metro newspaper assignment in the morning and then back to the X-Games so the M8 will play backup to the Nikon system for the day.

 

Nikon D3, D300, F100, FM3A, Leica M8, M6TTL, MP3, Hasselblad Xpan, 500 C/M, some 10 camera bodies and 26 lenses, gyros, rigs, lighting, it all has value in my kit. There is no perfect tool so having the selection makes for great redundancy and options in the world of the high end gigs.

[ndjambrose]

I tend to use my M8 for professional work in favour of anything else.

 

I have a substantial investment in Hasselblad (film and digital) but find that there are an increasing number of situations where the M8 is a more suitable choice. There's no doubt that MF has better image quality, but I've found there are plenty of places I can take the M8 that wouldn't really work out with the Hasselblad. And the shot's only good if you're there.

 

And I do a lot of wedding and documentary work where the M8 really comes into its own. For my style of photography there's nothing better. I used to use a S5 Pro but now wouldn't be comfortable going back to it.

[JHAG]

I use my M8 for about 10-20% of my pro work. I use it for editorial and some advertising, pulled a $6,500 exclusive use stock sale today off an image made with it. I had to uprezz it to 25 inches wide at 300DPI so I massaged it out of C1 and it honestly looked great, them's er' good pixels in that thar' M8!

 

[…]

 

And finally the other 20-40% of my work is on film so it is mostly the brilliant 500 C/M and that host of glass and backs. There are some things you just can't do with digital w/o spending a whole lot of time in front a computer which I avoid like the plague.

 

 

Nice combination : that's mine too (I have no use of the D3, for reasons stated in my first post).