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

Hello,

 

 

My best buddie loves Leica.

 

He started with a Leica III when we worked at the Grand Canyon and aquired a

M2 and a M4 after he became a professor in New Orleans. Unfortunately, he lost

everything to the water after hurricane Katrina made landfall. He is back up

on his feet and is in a jones for a Leica M again. He has fixated on the new

Leica M8, a digital camera. He is prepared to purchase a new M8 and a

Summicron on credit! Credit. A debt of probably 6000 USD to 7000 USD. Why?

What is the advantage of the M8 over a M7 or a MP that he can aquire for 2000

USD or so?

 

I reminded him that the M7 can shoot tech pan, slides, and the wonderful,

tonal HP5. And those negatives can yield 12 to 16mp files. That raised his

eyebrows, but seemed to do nothing to his infatuation.

 

Again, I reminded him that the 5000 USD difference between the M8 and M7

with lens would buy about 1250 rolls of film. Or 4 years of film if he shot

everyday. He doesn't, he shoots a about 5 rolls a weekend. Nearly five years

of film with much better acuity and tonality.

 

The thing that bothers me the most is that he intends to buy his M8 on

credit. He must pay interest, which makes an already expensive camera even

more expensive. Like I said, he is a good buddy. Generally, I agree, this

would be none of my business.

 

How can I talk him into considering going back to his relatively inexpensive

and more asthetic roots of film based M leicas?

 

Thanks.

I tried to approach and discuss the same issue with my grandson (age 24). It was akin to talking to a stone wall. For the young, "digital" is the mantra - - be it photography, music, communication or computers.

 

Peer pressure? Probably.

 

George (The Old Fud)

JD, It seems you have at least three issues. The first is digital vs film. The second is the

price difference between the two. The third is the issue of going into debt. For me, I have

become a convert to film over two years ago when I first acquired the Epson R-D1. Now

it's a matter of work flow. Now I can see my images without the hassle of processing and

developing. It has meant a tremendous savings in time. (In the past, I loved spending

time in the darkroom working hours on an image but I have tired of the dark and standing

on my feet.) The MSR price difference between a film M and the M8 is only $1300.

Consider the price of a roll of film at $4 and processing with proof at $6 per roll--that's

$10. For the price difference, that's only 130 rolls of film. At five rolls per weekend, that's

half a year's worth. Finally, as far as going into debt to buy either a film M or an M8 is

concerned, I can only quote Yogi Berra who had two words for it--"Gotta Havit!"

To those who have lost alot with Katrina theres alot of healing of ones heart, fixing and rebuilding ones house, dealing with insurance SOB's, an dealing with vistors "who just dont get it". Sometimes a new fun toy reduces stress and brings back fun into ones life again. The toy may not be a rational or logical buy.

The M8 is 4795, the M7 is 3495. Personally, I think you should let him do whatever he

wants. You said he is a professor, so he is probably not an idiot. If he wants a digital

camera in an M form factor, that is what he should get. In any case, he can't shoot tech

pan because it is no longer made, and the M8 will compare very favorably with HP5. But

that is neither here nor there. The fact is that digital is here, and it is here to stay. If he

wants to go that route you should let him. If he is not interested in processing himself or

having slide shows, there is probably little reason for him to stick with film, especially

since he is not shooting medium format or 4x5. Don't get me wrong, I still shoot about

80% film, but if you are not committed and interested, there is little point. And given how

expensive film, supplies and processing is these days, digital is definitely cheaper. You can

spend the difference between an M7 and M8 in film and processing costs extremely

quickly if you shoot a lot or send everything you do out to a lab. 5 rolls a weekend is still a

lot more than most people. At about 10 dollars a roll for film and processing, that is 2600

dollars a year before taxes. And that is processing only, no contact sheets or prints. And

he would need to add to that either the contact sheets and prints, or he would need to buy

a scanner. And in that case, you might as well just go digital anyway. I don't mean to come

down to hard in favor of digital, but I am playing devil's advocate. It seems like you want

him to stay with film because YOU like it. As for the credit thing, well, yeah, probably not a

good idea but I think that is not really related to the M8 versus M7/MP. They are extremely

expensive, and while you have a lower retail with the film cameras, the film and supplies

cost is way higher. And of course, the lenses cost exactly the same.

I just reread that and it sounded far more vindictive than I wanted it too. I am just arguing

passionately, I have no malice at all! I just wanted to clarify that....

Sorry to hear about the loss, of course.

 

If you are comparing NEW prices - an M7 or MP these days is $3500, not $2000. So the

price difference, as Henry alludes to, is $1300, not 1300 rolls of film. Even if you can find

a used M7/MP for $2000, the body-to-body difference is $2700, not $5000 - you still

need a lens in addition.

 

An M7/MP can shoot Tech Pan or K25 until the supplies of refrigerated film available on

*bay run out - they aren't made anymore. As someone who shot Velvia 50 and Pan F for

years, and shoots an M8 now, I can tell you that the M8 files are easily as sharp (acuity),

and less grainy, than films half as fast, at any ISO.

 

Tonality has so many variables, including whether one scans film or prints analog, how the

film (or digital file) is shot and processed, WHICH film or digital is used, etc, that I doubt

you can support the claim that film has "much better tonality" (nor would I claim the M8 is

"much better").

 

If someone wants to sit in a dark room viewing slides, or work in a dark room making

prints, as a specific activity, film is fun.

 

It's also expensive - in addition to the film itself there is: processing, gas to/from the lab,

personal time to and from the lab or for home processing.

 

My estimate for a roll of film - including ALL the attached expenses, is $20 per roll just to

get to a slide or negative. Printing of any kind is extra.

 

So the raw body-to-body difference between the M8 and the M7 is $1300/20 - or 65 rolls

of film. 3 months worth for your friend @ 5 rolls per week.

 

The quality issue doesn't fly. The cost issue doesn't fly. Debt as an issue is between him,

his family, and his banker (although as a friend you can offer your thoughts). Which may

be why you're not having much luck.

 

But - there is a "fun" factor to both digital and film. If you really want to persuade him to

stick with film - take him into the darkroom to paddle around in the trays and such. Or

take him to a Circuit City and show him how dismal projected digital still is.

 

If he is just no longer interested in projected images (whether on a wall or through an

enlarger) - you've done all you can.

If you shoot black and white and do your own processing, film isn't very expensive at all. My costs come in at about $3-4 a roll for the film and processing for black and white when I do it myself, excluding printing. Color is more expensive, but you can certainly save money with mailers. Unless you shoot *a lot* of pictures, the difference in costs between digital and film isn't staggering.

 

My point is that the cost calculus is not one sided, especially once the depreciation/obsolescence cost of digital cameras is included.

 

Obviously, if he prefers the digital workflow and likes to see his images as they are made, it makes perfect sense to get an M8. But I don't think that getting the M8 is really a cost-saving approach, as others here are suggesting.

Pure muckracking tripe..you want the digital M? pay the price...

If he is a good friend, give him your suggestions and leave it at that. why are you pushibg a film camera down his throat?? You will soon turn from a friend to "pain in the @rse".

On going into debt: spend! Live like Americans! The overall savings rate is now negative. How can you keep up with your neighbors is you don't use a little plastic, too?

It's not your place to talk him into anything...he's an adult who can make up his own mind based on the facts at hand. You've presented a persuasive argument...now compliment him on his choice of cameras, based on his needs and let him enjoy whatever he chooses without somebody ragging on him.

Better try new meds. Lighten up!

If he shoots B&W, its still no contest. I've NEVER seen a B&W print from digital capture that comes close to the classic look of 35mm Tri-X. Cleaner? Yes. Sharper? yes. But better looking? no way.

<i> He started with a Leica III when we worked at the Grand Canyon and aquired a M2 and a M4 after he became a professor in New Orleans. Unfortunately, he lost everything to the water after hurricane Katrina made landfall.

 

The thing that bothers me the most is that he intends to buy his M8 on credit. He must pay interest, which makes an already expensive camera even more expensive. Like I said, he is a good buddy. Generally, I agree, this would be none of my business.</i></p>Assuming this is a true scenario and not a bunch of contrived BS to base a troll film-vs-digital thread, then you hit the nail on the head with the last statement. By your first statement it appears you guys aren't spring chickens. He's survived a horrible event and probably has a more live-for-today attitude as a result. If he's really your best friend for so many years, be supportive. Now, and if and when buyer's remorse sets in. With the short supply of M8s now, and a hit-or-miss supply of the IR filters necessary to use it, I'd say he's got a couple months to think this over and might even change his mind on his own. If not, it's a lot of money but probably not in comparison to what he lost that insurance didn't cover.

PS, I'm no shrink, just a guy in the insurance biz for 45 years whos seen a lot of peoples' reactions after losing everything they own in a catastrophic event.

Well, if you really want to be supportive, be a friend and buy him some IR filters for his

favorite lenses.

I would advise anybody to not get into debt, especially in a revolving credit situation. Its easy to do and seems to be the American way, but it can get somebody into trouble. I always feel better when I save up for a new toy. JMHO

going into debt for a purchase that one can use to make money is one thing, going into

debt for a new 'toy' is another. does your friend shoot weddings or portraits? sells his

images as prints? he has a job, so it's not as if there is no money coming in. he will also

have a good year to make up his mind as to whether he likes the camera enough to keep it

or not. i'm sure within a few month's, he'll be able to recoup most of his money on the

used m8 market. then he can chalk up the small loss as a sort of 'rental fee' for the time.

 

i use an old beat up f3 and one of the ugliest rollei tlr's i've ever seen in my life. i shoot

stills mostly for myself, but have sold prints to people and show my book around to

anyone interested. that book has gotten me a few gigs and may be sending me overseas

this summer.

 

i also bought a used d70 for a decent price in the hopes of trying digital out. it's not a

GREAT camera, but it can yield some decent images. i dont use it much now and could

probably sell it today for 100/150 less than i paid for it. that's a pretty good rental price

i'd say for 1.5 years.

 

a piece of advice i like to give to anyone looking to shell out serious money on camera

gear, is to first get educated on shooting (if not already) and 2nd. get a clean nice

working 35mm camera, a bunch of film and a plane ticket and go somewhere for a few

weeks and shoot. $3000 is a nice vacation somewhere. heck. $2000 and i could go to

thailand and fart around for a month if i was budget strict.

The absolute best thing you can do as a friend to help him without criticizing his questionable financial planning or his infatuation with the latest thing is to encourage him to get insurance on whichever camera he buys. I mean insurance that will cover it whereever he is: not just in the house.

Pleez...like nobody here has gone in debt for a new car which they don't "need." Glass houses etc.

Nikon D80 solves most of his needs.

Yes, definitely buy as much insurance as you can <grin>!

 

Seriously, the only people impressed with using an M8 vs a Canon 5D vs a Rebel Xt are the guys on internet forums where regardless of the rhetoric it's mostly a matter of showing off one's financial capability vs photographic. The rest of the world that looks at our pictures doesn't know and/or doesn't care what kind of camera we use, and if they have any opinion at all about spending $5000 or $2500 on a camera, it's usually that unless the buye is a pro, he has to be nuts.

Jerry you are speaking nonsense. If the 5D or the Rebelxtwhatever was a rangefinder, then you might, might have something resembling an argument.

 

The big difference between financing a car and buying on a credit card is one is a secured debt and the other (credit card) is an unsecured revolving debt. In other words, they can take the car back if you don't pay, the credit cards will change the purchase contract by severly upping the interest rate, late fees ect., plus the companies will sue you if you don't pay.

<I>Seriously, the only people impressed with using an M8 vs a Canon 5D vs a Rebel Xt are

the guys on internet forums where regardless of the rhetoric it's mostly a matter of showing

off one's financial capability vs photographic.</I><P>

 

Couldn't agree more.