A thought re M9, film Ms and results

[batmobile]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is not a 'better than' thread, OK!

 

Lots of people can't afford the M9, yet some can, but won't buy because they are not sure if it gives them all they need. Some will buy one because they can and in the next 12 months produce very few shots that will end up framed and on the wall or even in beautifully presented portfolios (or website). I feel this is a terrible shame and tends to result from chasing kit solutions rather than working towards photographic ends. Personally, I work towards small numbers images of the highest quality I can. I don't care for absolute numbers or 'keeper rates'. I get as many as I get - Its purely about producing images that mean something to me and that I hope that others will enjoy too.

 

The M9 is $7000 and a clean M6 $1200, so $5800 less. Has anyone ever taken the approach of committing the money you could have spent on an expensive bit of kit and earmarking it for creative things, like film and custom prints? Many people will find it very easy to earmark $7K for the M9 but will be miserly when it comes to printing and framing!

 

$5800 would buy about 80 custom B&W fibre based 20x16 prints, or 40 in frames... enough to fill a very large houses on the main walls or produce a solid exhibition... that you will have in years to come; that your families might enjoy 100 years from now.

 

I bring this up because it is a thought worth thinking. Instead of upgrading M9/10/11s every five years, in 20 years, this process would result in 4 x 80, call it 300 superb, dazzling, beautifully produced prints of your finest work (or 600 without frames if you can come anywhere near this ) and it can all be done with a M whatever and a couple of lenses.

 

Who here spends a lot of money on prints, framing and finishing? Who financially plans for this? For the hobbyist, the argument in favour of a film M if your goal is to produce fantastic prints in B&W is pretty darned strong!

[Advertisement]

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

[earleygallery]

Putting aside the M9, but thinking in terms of expenditure on equipment v output, I think you raise an interesting point.

 

The price of a new camera or lens - assuming one already has some adequate equipment - could be spent on a trip to somewhere new, to photograph, or printing, or hosting an exhibition etc etc.

 

I decided to self fund an exhibition a few years ago, kind of fulfilling an ambition and also because I had an idea I really wanted to share. I sold one print (which is one more than expected as it wasn't at all commercial) but the people who visited really enjoyed it, and it was an experience I want to have again. The cost would have paid for a nice holiday, or even that Summicron I've always wanted!

 

It's very easy to become engrossed in equipment issues, especially with Leica. Some people no doubt get more enjoyment from buying/owning the gear than actually using it, nothing wrong with that of course but it is rather missing the point. Good therapy is to buy some old box camera from a fair or jumble and go and make some images with it, real back to basics! Or spend some money on a short course, on B&W printing for example.

 

I do recall hearing someone remark that they never printed their images, always viewed on the computer and shared by e mail (this a Leica user with some exotic gear). Shame.

[dicko101]

Alas these comments reflect the trade in photographic wares as it has been for many years. Yes digital has accelerated the rate at which the equipment fetishists offload their 'obsolete' gear but it has always been a similar psychology with film gear. I have sold equipment to one customer for years. Way back when, it was an EOS 5 and a couple of L lenses. He would wish that he could take pictures faster and not have to load film. He felt his pictures weren't 'sharp' so he upgraded L lenses (he's a doctor) and at the dawn of the digital age got himself a D60.

He felt it was the best thing since sliced bread and that it was all he needed...well 6 months later he wanted better wide angle lenses so he splurged again...

Anywho, a few years back he moved onto the 5D and like a small child was entertained for 6 months before complaining that he needed higher resolution and that his gear was "too good" to use on only low resolution stuff so now he has a 5DmkII. He complains that lenses like the L 85mm lenses are "AWFUL" and that they should not have passed QC because his 5DmkII can "outresolve" his lenses.

 

But I digress, the point of this and how it relates to your initial post batmobile is that some people will never be happy, which is not inherently a bad thing, and that if one has money to splurge on an M9, go for it, but when Alec Trevelyen points the Goldeneye satellite at London and the offices of DPreview and everyone's computer hard drives are destroyed with a stolen Soviet electro-magnetic pulse, what will they have to show for their years of bowing down at the altar of digital?

[Michael Hiles]

I have a lot of time for this argument and line of thought.

 

I stopped thinking about equipment years ago. My M2 and M3 and some old-ish lenses produce technically excellent images - the Leicas and film never let me down.

 

In fact, the main reason I use Leicas is that the equipment does not get in the way or seriously interfere between my eye/mind and the world around me. An M7/8/9 adds nothing to that essential reason I use a Leica rather than a Wizbang Belchfire Obsoleto something or other.

 

When I show pictures to friends etc., I hope they react to the essential picture. If they are most impressed by the sharpness and technical qualities, I have failed. If someone asks me if a picture was made with a Summicron v2 or v3, they may not live long. If they like the way I see the world around me, I might buy lunch.

 

So I spend money on film, paper and framing.

[jhild]

Basically I´m laughing, just laughing. When the M8 arrived there was all that hype and trouble, filters,

one needs special filters, crop factor, lens coding, a lot of money. Then there was the M8.2 just to

proof that those who bought the M8 with all it´s problems could now buy a better version just a few

years later for even more money.

And now there is the M9, full format Sensor plus no more need for crazy filters, all lenses can be used,

what a wonderful progress, no more Crop factor. So is this the time to go digi or is it better to wait for the next M XX, may be in two years time?

I use full frame sensor since 35 years, my cameras are made between 1938 and 2006 and I can use all my

lenses on all my bodies, at least the older srewmounts. I always need 3 bodies when I´m out so it would

cost me a fortune to go digi let alone there would be no more travel money left.

Poor Leica company, I can understand they had to hop on that digi train but at the same time they loose

what made a Leica a Leica (besides other things), and that is long time use, sometimes even very long

time. The M9 prices are to high for hobby photters like myself so a film M is a very attractive alternative,

much cheaper even if thinking about slide film costs or print costs.

There are some very good arguments to stay with film M´s, just my two cents.

 

Poor man´s greetings

 

Jo

[Jamie Roberts]

It's interesting... but here's the other side of that coin...

 

In the past three years with my M8 I took more pictures than I have in the last 10 with my film Ms.

 

So over 50,000 frames in professional use in three years. That's 1300 rolls of film. Let's call that $10 each for processing for $4.3K per year and all of a sudden $2K per year for an M9 looks like a steal

 

I'm way ahead with a digital, and that's with no master shots processed, printed and framed.

 

Does that mean all those shots were better? No way, not at all, but I could risk shots at a level I simply wouldn't have due to material costs before.

 

So digital has its downside, and some people are never satisfied for silly reasons. But digital has its upside too, in letting you experiment relatively risk-free even in professional situations.

 

The cost of ownership with digital is all up-front. All you have to do to make it pay is get out there and shoot (like you never could before).

 

That's a huge creative advantage, IMO, and quite obviously well worth the $$. FWIW, it's made me a much better film shooter as well

[biglouis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I understand where you are coming from on this and without diverging too greatly you may be interested in a new project I am starting.

 

I recently went to the Don McCullin exhibition at the National Media Museum in Bradford and there I saw prints for the first time of his incredibly emotional homelessness series, shot in and around Whitechapel in the late 60s (I've only ever seen these in magazines and books). Those pictures as 16x12s or greater are just amazing.

 

I thread my way through the same streets each morning and indeed it has been the inspiration for my book "Walk to Work", shot pretty much exclusively with my M8.

 

After the exhibition I thought it would be (a) interesting and ( a learning experience to try and follow in McCullin's footsteps but 40-odd years later. At the exhibition there was a display of one of McCullin's cameras with the information that his kit was generally a Nikon film body and a 28mm and 135mm lens. Indeed he talks in his interviews of how he would walk into Whitechapel with his camera under his coat, so I am assuming his street kit was a humble Nikon and his 28mm

 

So, what I have done is to purchase a used Nikon FE film body (serviced with a 6 month warranty for £130) and a Nikkor 28/2.8 AIS (also recently serviced for £135). Total including a replacement missing eyepiece (£15) of £280. I'm waiting for the delivery of my first batch of ASA400 XP2.

 

I'm going to try and restrict myself to 1 or 2 rolls a month shooting at a considered pace and giving myself from now until next July to compile my output (while sharing the results along the way at a website with a URL I have purchased for the purpose, another £5).

 

I do not expect to get close to or even begin to approach the brilliance of McCullin's work but it could be a lot of fun and great learning experience to try and get there. And unless I do cave and blow my cash on an M9 then I could have a whole lot of money left over to turn the results into an exhibition.

 

LouisB

[Pangur Ban]

Louis, I wish you well and look forward to your photographs and trust that you will be able to find your own perspective and be able to capture it with the gear you have chosen and the technique you use to capture, develop, process and print the images, though I don't image the Great Don would have used c-41 film, if you want to be properly authentic.

 

Indeed, I'm lost to understand how your choice of kit will influence this - my guess is that your inspiration was not particularly conscious of brands and just chose what he liked the most: would your project not have had more originality if you had replicated his process rather than the results? I'm not clear what you are trying to achieve, unless it is an homage to a master: if you are looking for your own voice then you'll have to do more than echo someone else but rely on modern conveniences.

[NZDavid]

[so over 50,000 frames in professional use in three years. That's 1300 rolls of film. Let's call that $10 each for processing for $4.3K per year and all of a sudden $2K per year for an M9 looks like a steal ]

 

Budget matters! The M9 is expensive! So is it worth it?

 

Digital does indeed make a huge economic difference for everyday pro work.

 

1,300 rolls of film is a mega lot of pictures. I guess I'd call myself more semi pro -- I take pictures for publication, but not all the time, neither do I depend on photography for a fulltime income. I'd produce a fifth that many exposures, if that. It would take me five to eight years for an M9 to pay for itself in film cost savings. Longer if I don't get all images scanned professionally, or if did my own scanning (which I may do, though it's hard to find the time.)

 

And yes, that's a heck of a lot of films and prints!

 

The other point, of course, is that film cameras continue to come up with the goods. If you are perfectly happy with the results, then no-one is forcing you to change.

[adan]

You know, it is interesting. As a trained photographer with 2 years of HS and 7 years of college time learning to print, plus X many subsequent years doing my own work, I have always resented paying others to print or frame for me (I don't resent the people - just much preferred to do it myself, where I could control it, do it on my time frame, and do it cheaper in terms of raw chemicals costs).

 

Precisely to have the extra cash to explore equipment options.

 

But (for me specifically, to avoid this becoming a D vs F thread), the muss and fuss of chemical printing was a real problem, especially in the years I rented, and when I wanted color. (and while B&W has a magic all its own, I don't accept that it is in any way superior to color). So I moved to scanning and inkjet, and ultimately to digital capture, which allowed me eventually to never put my images through anything but a single Leica lens, at the moment of exposure. And never visit a lab again, even for slide processing.

 

At this point, printing is virtually free (since I do prints cheaply for colleagues that pay for all my own ink and paper as well). Everything else is virtually free, too. So I can get the X-many-hundred prints whenever I get the images to print - produced right before my eyes, guided by my hand - not perhaps as magical as a print in a tray, but closer to that than picking up prints at the lab counter would be.

 

The M9 is a cusp point - the arrival of a film-sized sensor for my M lenses. It will never be replicated - the M10s, 11s, 12s may offer some advantages, but never the paradigm shift that the M9 represents over the M8 (or that the M8 represented in its own right). I doubt I will move on from the M9(s) until they become unrepairable. Therefore it is a unique event.

 

I am actually cutting back on equipment - reducing my M lenses back to the 3-4 I more or less used for film, from the 7 or so I owned to compensate this way or that way for the M8 crop; disposing of a small Hassy setup that obviously has no future with me; going with 1 M9 instead of 2 M8s. (I may add a second used one in the future from someone like dick101's Dr.)

 

We have been watching the birth of a new photographic medium over the past decade, so there has been more change from month to month to keep up with than in the era when I could spend 6-7 years with one Nikon F and one Tri-X and one Kodachrome. That change is plateauing to some extent, now that 24x36 sensors are available in at least one camera pretty much the size of that old Nikon.

 

There have been plateaus and steep change curves at several points in the history of photography. A photographer might have stayed with the same view camera from 1870 to 1900, but another might have gone through 5 very different cameras between 1925 and 1955, with the advent of Leicas, Rolleiflexes, Hasselblads, Contaxes, Mamiyas, and Pentaxes (if not quite to Nikon Fs). Not to mention Polaroids, Kodachrome, Agfacolor and Tri-X. All for perfectly good reasons.

 

Anyway - that's my experience, and it was a good thread to think about. Thanks for reading.

[aesop]

<snip> So over 50,000 frames in professional use in three years. That's 1300 rolls of film.

 

That's a huge creative advantage, IMO, and quite obviously well worth the $$. FWIW, it's made me a much better film shooter as well

 

 

 

...Jamie, I just got an M9 to go with my film Ms but, digital notwithstanding, it is my intention to apply my usual considered approach to digital picture-taking.

 

Don't get me wrong - I am sure you find merit in your approach (and rightly so), but for me, unless you are extremely prolific in attracting work, this sounds and smells like a quantity versus quality thing. Having invested years learning the rudiments of photography, I am now in a position to benefit from the knowledge accrued - there will therefore be no "blasting away" on my M9.

 

I will continue to use my film Ms in conjunction with the M9 and hope to benefit from some sort of 2-way knowledge transfer. Used smartly, film and digital have strengths relevant to specific situations. As time is also a valuable resource, I hope I will not be spending an inordinate amount of it stuck in front of a computer screen, sifting through worthless captures (editing?). Yes, we all agree that efficiency is the ultimate goal, but it must be firmly grounded in sound knowledge and experience.

 

Today is "day one" in my sojourn into the world of digital photography, and I look forward to my first fibre-based digital print. Hope I enjoy the trip.

[Michael Hiles]

...I look forward to my first fibre-based digital print...

 

Agree. Too bad that this option is not being pursued except at the very high end. Around here a high end commercial printer makes Cibachrome prints using a Durst Lambda machine (laser projection on to the paper). I think they can do the same in B&W. That sounds interesting and it would be nice to have an affordable machine available.

[batmobile]

Jamie,

 

I was not applying this logic to the economics of high volume professional use, but rather the person who works towards personally gratifying images as per the OP. For a pro, burning thousands of rolls of film a year and with turnaround issues, there is little argument to be made.

 

I am not knocking the M9, or digi vs film, just stating an argument for low volume B&W hobbyists to stick with film, whereas I suspect a good few will plumb for the M9 and few images will ever see the light of day. however, it is very possible that this would also be the case were they to stay with a film M because either they are more interested in the camera end or are not happy enough with what they produce to feel it is worth pro printing and framing.

[Jeff Day]

An interesting point. I use a film camera - the MP - for black & white and color. I have been experimenting with using the little digital DLUX4 to get a feel for digital and here's what I've found: I can take a lot more photos with digital in a given amount of time, then cull them for the best shots, and as a result I end up with more good shots than I do with film in the same amount of time (my cycle time for film is much longer because I send it out to pro labs for development).

 

This has really given me pause to think about what my goals are for photography, and I have come to the conclusion that what I want to do is take as many photos as possible, and get as many good shots as possible, and as a result I've ordered an M9 to see how that will work out for me.

 

Now I don't expect this applies to everyone, particularly those who are very handy at developing and printing their own film and enjoy that, but after 30 + years of developing and printing I've become tired of doing that, and would rather leave that to others. For me now the fun is in the taking of the photos, not so much whether it is digital or film.

 

Best,

 

Jeff

[gyoung]

An interesting point. I use a film camera - the MP - for black & white and color. I have been experimenting with using the little digital DLUX4 to get a feel for digital and here's what I've found: I can take a lot more photos with digital in a given amount of time, then cull them for the best shots, and as a result I end up with more good shots than I do with film in the same amount of time (my cycle time for film is much longer because I send it out to pro labs for development).

 

This has really given me pause to think about what my goals are for photography, and I have come to the conclusion that what I want to do is take as many photos as possible, and get as many good shots as possible, and as a result I've ordered an M9 to see how that will work out for me.

 

Now I don't expect this applies to everyone, particularly those who are very handy at developing and printing their own film and enjoy that, but after 30 + years of developing and printing I've become tired of doing that, and would rather leave that to others. For me now the fun is in the taking of the photos, not so much whether it is digital or film.

 

Best,

 

Jeff

 

This idea has been around since motor drives were invented, I found that with sports photography it often meant you missed the right shot, straddling it with photos either side of the 'decisive moment', with pictorial type stuff I personally think that there is more liklehood of a good pic if time and thought are put in before pressing the button, perhaps following up with bracketing exposures etc.

Shooting transparencies, I still reject a large percentage of what I shoot, but not as high as my wife, since she got a digital P&S she rejects about 80% of what she takes, and each one seems to take longer as she stays routed to the spot until it comes up on the screen! With film she thought more since the film cost money, and threw out less than 10%

 

Gerry

[biglouis]

Indeed, I'm lost to understand how your choice of kit will influence this - my guess is that your inspiration was not particularly conscious of brands and just chose what he liked the most: would your project not have had more originality if you had replicated his process rather than the results? I'm not clear what you are trying to achieve, unless it is an homage to a master: if you are looking for your own voice then you'll have to do more than echo someone else but rely on modern conveniences.

 

Thanks for the response. The main purpose is fun, learning and experience. Having already achieved a well received portfolio of pictures of the same area, using every modern convenience possible, I want to see if I can achieve similar results using basic photographic technology and film. I may fail dismally but at least I'll learn something along the way.

 

Incidentally, the reason why I did not go for a M-body is that £130 doesn't get you very far...

 

LouisB

[Nick De Marco]

Louis, I think that is a very interesting idea, and I too look forward to seeing your results.

 

I have been using film more and more recently (both with my film Ms and some medium format). One of the things I enjoy is the discipline and the fact that you can be more restricted. Versatility is a great thing with digital - the ability to shoot in raw then later decide if you want colour or black and white; or change ISO without changing film - is liberating but also diluting. If you use one type of film for a specific project the individual photos can better hang together as a series. Of course you could do this in digital too if you restricted yourself to only shooting with one set iso and post processing in the same way, but firstly you wouldn't and secondly that would partially defeat the object of digital.

 

I plan on my next trip to Burma to focus on taking some film series of photos more than on digital, and I nearly decided to leave my 5D MkII at home entirely to make sure I do. But as I am going away for a while, and possibly wanting to shoot in different conditions (low light/high iso; sometimes maybe flash) I had better take the 5DII for the more specialist stuff. The normal street documentary stuff though, I plan to shoot entirely on film.

[dpattinson]

...Jamie, I just got an M9 to go with my film Ms but, digital notwithstanding, it is my intention to apply my usual considered approach to digital picture-taking.

 

Don't get me wrong - I am sure you find merit in your approach (and rightly so), but for me, unless you are extremely prolific in attracting work, this sounds and smells like a quantity versus quality thing. Having invested years learning the rudiments of photography, I am now in a position to benefit from the knowledge accrued - there will therefore be no "blasting away" on my M9.

 

I suspect what Jamie is referring to is not that one can 'blast away', but that it is possible to 'experiment for free' with digital. Not only does it not cost any more to shoot the extra frames, but you get relatively immediate feedback on the outcomes. I experiment with subject, lighting, dof, exposure and a whole host of other variables which I didn't do when I shot film (except by accident). On film I tended to stick to what I already knew would work for me - which is great, but it does limit your options.

It really is a great freedom to be able to try stuff out - to accept the missed focus or unnoticed flaw and just treat that as a learning experience rather than a sad dissapointment a couple of weeks down the road when you get a film processed.

I don't think my proportion of keepers has varied much - but I'm certainly shooting way more and consequently the number of keepers 'per year' has definitely increased. I have also noticed that things I've learned shooting with my M8 have transferred back to my film shooting - I'm a better M7 shooter now than I was before I got my M8.

 

My 2c, YMMV

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Pangur Ban]

Thanks for the response. The main purpose is fun, learning and experience. Having already achieved a well received portfolio of pictures of the same area, using every modern convenience possible, I want to see if I can achieve similar results using basic photographic technology and film. I may fail dismally but at least I'll learn something along the way.

 

Incidentally, the reason why I did not go for a M-body is that £130 doesn't get you very far...

 

LouisB

 

I can certainly see the attraction of your plan - my point was more that I failed to see how the choice of another photographer had influenced your selection of equipment rather than you emulating that photographer's process which was to select the right equipment for the task. You may indeed end up at the same place, but it's quite a different starting point. If your objective is an homage, and there's nothing wrong with that at all, then wouldn't consistency with the rest of the process - ie choice of film, development and processing method - also apply?

 

I wasn't suggesting that you use a Leica (though I did buy my IIIa and a good 50mm Summitar together for less than your combined purchase).

[jaapv]

Basically I´m laughing, just laughing. When the M8 arrived there was all that hype and trouble, filters,

one needs special filters, crop factor, lens coding, a lot of money. Then there was the M8.2 just to

proof that those who bought the M8 with all it´s problems could now buy a better version just a few

years later for even more money.

And now there is the M9, full format Sensor plus no more need for crazy filters, all lenses can be used,

what a wonderful progress, no more Crop factor. So is this the time to go digi or is it better to wait for the next M XX, may be in two years time?

I use full frame sensor since 35 years, my cameras are made between 1938 and 2006 and I can use all my

lenses on all my bodies, at least the older srewmounts. I always need 3 bodies when I´m out so it would

cost me a fortune to go digi let alone there would be no more travel money left.

Poor Leica company, I can understand they had to hop on that digi train but at the same time they loose

what made a Leica a Leica (besides other things), and that is long time use, sometimes even very long

time. The M9 prices are to high for hobby photters like myself so a film M is a very attractive alternative,

much cheaper even if thinking about slide film costs or print costs.

There are some very good arguments to stay with film M´s, just my two cents.

 

Poor man´s greetings

 

Jo

Well, I'm not laughing. It is increasingly difficult to get decent enlargements from colour film, professional scanning is indecently expensive, I cannot control the darkroom side like I can control postprocessing. Much I as I like film, to me it is a one way street I only walk for nostalgia.