I know this is blasphemy; why M8 over film M?

And you'd be wrong.

Almost all the cameras, TV's, ipods bought in the world are for used for fun, and not for making any money at all. <BR><BR>Thus the consumer item decision has a negative return on investment, with not even one penny coming back in the future to figure IRR. The item is "consumed"; like bread or wine. <BR><BR>Folks often do an emotional "internal raturn of "fun"" for consumer items. Thus my recent purchase of a malibu wakesetter VLX boat was for fun. The 14" boat was cheaper than the real thing, and AA batteries are cheaper than gasoline for the big boat. With forward and reverse left and right controls for 19 bucks; its a cool toy.<BR><BR>Most folks are buying the camera as a cool tool to shoot images for fun, not a profit. The IRR calc might be tweaked so the "return" is utility of the tool in shooting images, how much future fun one gets with the rockem sockem robots or davey crocket coon skin caps, or monopoly game. Thus if one buys a M8 or M7 with cash or credit and never uses it or displays it :), there is less fun factor or utility as a tool than if one uses it.<BR><BR>With a skill saw or camera one is using the tool to make things to use and display sometimes to others. The utility and quickness of the tool; what type of coolness it has to others when bragging matters too :).<BR><BR>

If someone really wants to do digital they will regardless of what you think is best, but you have to wonder about the value of the M8 as it stands now (being somewhat less than perfect at this time).

 

Just bought my first digital camera, a 3 year old Canon DSLR (at 20% of it's new price) and I have to say, it can be fun, and does produce images that are quite acceptable for many peoples needs.

 

However, was at an exhibition of Alfred Eisenstaedt's prints yesterday and couldn't help thinking that for the photojournalistic applications such as that, today would be done with digital cameras. The prints on display were 75 years old and of very high quality and a treat (and an education) to view.

 

You have to wonder what medium will be used 75 years from now.

(1)In Katrina areas many folks do not want to buy the same old item that got lost/flooded, since it brings to some bad memories.<bR><Br><BR>(2)With other folks they want the SAME EXACT missing item again to make their shattered life abit whole again.<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>Thus at the summer home when I had to use two cum-alogs in parallel to pull a giant propane tank out of the house, I sheared the axle/busted on the neighbor's cheapie one; really worth only 30 bucks. He really didnt need another since he has about 4 of them. So I got a used TI calculator off of Ebay just like the high end one he lost in the flood, to square up my debt. <BR><BR>Thus I bought a used kenwood amp off of ebay just like the one I bought in 1979 for 200 bucks, for 45 bucks. One can spend hours scrubbing out the dirt & salt from circuit boards, and some items again will work fine. With other items the transformers and motors windings sometimes fail and the items often get chucked even after wasting alot of time in repairs. <BR><BR>With lenses an old brass LTM Nikkor from 1950' is robust even if a drop of salt gets into the helix. With aluminum mount lenses the salt welds the mount where even a pipe wrench wont budge it, even after soaking months in PB nut buster. IF the salt gets to the lenses diaphram the iris "petals" corrode like mad, since they are high stength steel. If one trys to rotate the aperture ring and the iris petals are "sort of stuck" one often shears the petals pivots!<BR><BR>Thus Katrina salt splashed lenses are often paperweights, that look mint, but no screw will come loose at all.<BR><BR>Lenses that took water internally and were horizontal often have the coating removed below the Katrina muck line. Some still have water in them, since the helix corroded shut; ie welded. One has a paperweight with internal dirty water in it, like a christmass snow scene glitter deal. Except the deals are is a 85mm F1.4, 105mm 1.8 AIS nikkors!<BR><BR>The C41 services post Katrina are sometimes poorer too, with less stores farther away, manned by grumpy folks all in a hurry.

After what, 40-50 years, your buddy has a pretty good idea about what he's likely to accomplish using film, and I'd say he wants to try something new. There are cheaper ways to "go digital" but why bother if they're not his style. He's probably got at least a couple of months to save some money before the camera arrives.

> How can I talk him into considering going back to his relatively >inexpensive and more asthetic roots of film based M leicas?

 

Have him come to this forum and ask for a serious opinion on film v digital

>> Couldn't agree more.

 

>>>> And you'd be wrong.

 

I understand why as a leica owner you need to take that position. It's OK with me...

If I were your friend, before I would go 6 or 7 thou into debt for a camera I would first look at a Canon G7, or a Digilux 2 of an Epson R-D1. But I am not a professor, so that is probably common sense talking.

yea well but did you at least warn him that the battery life in a M8 isn't very good(reading from the web of course) ;)?

it's not film vs digital...not the quality. It's whether you have time to do all the washing and cleaning and tank-tapping! Ah, lots of people don't get that.

If i could save 4-5 hrs playing with my kid instead of rodinal everyday and in the process spend 7k over 4 years, not to mention getting faster results and comparable quality, why not?

Why not buy both?

I just came back from a trip where I shot 20 rolls mostly Presto. I then spent days processing them two rolls at a time via Mr. Paterson, and then several more days scanning (oh fun) and PS'ing. Over Xmas break I was up til 3am editing my shots down to 60 keepers. At my age I really don't want to waste any time doing technical things having nothing to do with image creation. I would rather spend time with my family.

<i>Jerry you are speaking nonsense. If the 5D or the Rebelxtwhatever was a rangefinder, then you might, might have something resembling an argument.</i></p>I'd concede if I saw any photos here that supported your opinion. So far I haven't seen any that couldn't have been made with any one of a number of cameras.

As someone who prints digitally but does not yet own a good digital camera, a lot of this to-ing and fro-ing, comes down to not to "darkroom versus computer" but whether it really is worth plumping down so much money for a camera that we all know will be "bettered" probably within the year. In the old days this was not an issue as film was universal, but to me it seems to me a more sensible alternative would be to buy a cheaper 10MP camera that he will not feel so bad about paying for, such as a Canon 5D or Nikon D200. Of course if he really must have an M then there is nothing he can do about it (Epson RD1 perhaps?). If the M8 was a perfectly-realized M then I would feel less circumspect, but there are "issues" with it, which would make me think twice about buying it unless I knew I would be a non-issue for me. I think if the IR problem was solved without the use of the somewhat inelegant IR-filters-over-the-lenses solution then I personally would feel happier.

 

Of course, he could buy a s/h M6 and a good 35mm scanner and have a great digital system that will save him a good deal. But somehow I suspect this would not appeal - the siren call of the new is very powerful. I do take it as a completely obvious that if one is interested in COLOR prints then a digital printing path is the best solution for most people, but this does not have to be by using a digital camera.

if everyone waited 'just 1 year' for a much improved model, no digital camera would be bought...ever! remember that awesome 3mp canon d30 that everyone was raving about? :)

 

no m8's being purchased means no m9 in 1 or 2 years. the products must be consumed before improved upon

"I'd concede if I saw any photos here that supported your opinion. So far I haven't seen any that couldn't have been made with any one of a number of cameras."

 

It aint the camera that makes the pics, its the photographer;-) The photographer who has made a concious decision to buy a product based on his wants and needs in a camera system. The fact is that some people prefer a rangefinder to the slr, their way of shooting either demands the positive aspects of a rangefinder or they just plain prefer to work with one. I know its a tough fact to wrap your head around, but its the truth. For these people, an slr is not going to do it no matter what.

 

I mean seriously, would you go to a largeformat photography forum and complain that their shots aren't good enough or don't demand a largeformat camera, they can get buy with a small format slr, saying this over and over and over again? The argument doesn't work.

I agree with RJ. A lot of the 7K goes into the pleasure of using the rangefinding M8 versus say a SLRing 5D. It's akin to eating with barehands versus with a fork. Not the food.

IMHO, it seems that your buddy has done his homework. He wants another Leica M, but since he's been forced to build his system from scratch again he's decided to go digital instead of film.

If your concerns are truly for his economic health then you could always lend him the money at no interest. I mean he is a friend and all...

<i>I mean seriously, would you go to a largeformat photography forum and complain that their shots aren't good enough or don't demand a largeformat camera, they can get buy with a small format slr, saying this over and over and over again? The argument doesn't work.</i></p>Except that's not my argument at all. My argument is that people are saying the M8 is capable of better image quality than other digital cameras that have larger sensors and more pixels--a denial of laws of physics, but the shots they put up in defense of their claims could've been taken with any number of much less expensive cameras. If someone took the same quality photos and tried to use them as proof of the superiority of large-format over small-format they would be just as groundless. I mean, seriously <wink>

jerry, i kind of get where you're coming from, and i know i'm not really in this discussion, but maybe your wording is why you're seeing it this way.

 

you say the photos they put up in 'defence' of using this camera. i dont think anyone is putting up photos in defence of anything.

 

a lot of m8 buyers have a range of leica lenses. purchasing the m8 allows them to continue shooting in the style they like and with the lenses they already own. would be far pricier to buy a new 5d and range of lenses that some of these buyers already own in leica mount.

 

size and weight is also a factor. ability to focus easier in lower light, another.

 

saying you can get the same image from either camera may be true in 95% of the cases. shooting 50mm at 1/8th second i think you'd see some noticeable differences in camera shake between two enlarged prints.

 

and just because the cheap chevy cavalier gets me from point a to point b the same as a much pricier honda, doesnt make the cavalier a better option. if i buy the honda i know the long lasting quality i'm buying into and i know it will hold it's value relatively well if i choose to sell in a few years.

Matt, skipping the "which is better" discussion for a moment, why would you believe that <I>any</I> digital camera would hold its value over a few (2-3-4?) years? Especially when every camera released to-date has proven otherwise.

"The M8 is 4795, the M7 is 3495."

 

Assuming those are US dollars, that's a difference of $1300.00. A roll of 36 exposure slide

film is about $9.00 these days. Professional quality processing is about $8.00. So $17.00

per roll right?

 

So let's look at the financial equation another way: You say he shoots 5 rolls a weekend.

In 20 weekends he'll have spent $1700 (20x5 x$17.00) on film and processing.

 

Your argument about credit is debunked if he uses his credit card to pay for the film and

processing too.

sp, i guess you mis read or i mis typed :) anyways, what i was saying is that sure digital and all equipment purchased new will go down in value after use. i just think that a more niche market tool such as the m8 will hold more value than a run of the mill 'everyone has one' canon or nikon dslr. sure it will go down, but if you want to sell in a year, i'm sure the decrease in market used value will be less.

 

that is when you can weigh in depreciation vs. money saved on film/process and also use.