Which is more economical?

<p>Just a short question, I know I keep posting questions, but recently I've been thinking about my looming purchase in October with my first Leica M. Because I want to buy 'brand new' everything, I can't really ask for something to be more economical over another especially when dealing with a Leica system. However, at first I was thinking of a film M over the M9 because I like film, but also because I never thought I'd be able to afford an M9 and the long waiting times it involved.</p>

<p>And things somewhat changed when I was informed by my local Leica dealer that every lens I wanted was out of stock and that I would have to wait months for them(50 noctilux, 50 and 35 'lux, 35 'cron). The only lens they have, and there's only one left even then. Is the 50 'cron. So regardless of whatever I want, I'd have to wait. So here's my rationale, and I wonder if it's right. Or if people can understand it.</p>

<p>If I were to shoot a film M. I want the fastest lenses I can get my hands on. I would buy a Noctilux except the waiting time is an exceptional 5 months. And I'm not for that since I only want one lens. So I was thinking;</p>

<p>All prices are what it costs in SGD(more sense for me anyway) and converted with xe.com. <br>

Leica MP (a la carte, for no engraving, vulcanite, .58 viewfinder on BP body) - about 6180 USD. My country's a la carte prices are little bit more expensive for some reason.<br>

50mm Summliux - about 3225 USD.<br>

So that total is about 9405 USD.</p>

<p>If I were to shoot a digital M however, I would shoot with Summicrons instead since I could tweak my ISO and although the rendering is a little different. You get my drift.</p>

<p>Leica M9 (according to my local dealer) - about 8300 USD. I know Steve Huff says it's $7k, but after conversions, that's what it is.<br>

50mm Summicron - about 1975 USD.<br>

So that total is 10275 USD.</p>

<p>The difference is like $870, if I'm spending so much already, I could definitely afford to shell out more for the M9. The question is, or the question I'm posing is. Given my views, can I argue that the digital M is more economical in that you could shoot 2000 images and it would cost nothing versus film? Or does it both work out to around the same?</p>

<p>The only real draw of the M9 for me, or a digital M, is how I could use much smaller lenses(i.e. 35 or 50 'cron) instead of larger 'luxes because I could set the ISO to match what I needed and that would translate into a better travelling companion. Of course I've never held or travelled with a film M + 'lux combo, so I don't really know what I'm talking about, but that's just some background for you.</p>

<p>Is there a particular reason you have have to buy brand new? Because if you just want to, that is fine, but then you should not be asking questions of economy. Just buy what you want. You could buy five M6's in good condition for the price of the one MP a la carte. You also would not have to wait months and months. <br>

Also, you don't need summiluxes to shoot film! There is only a one stop difference between them and summicrons, and you can shoot all the summicrons wide open without any hesitation. When you are using ISO 400 film, at f/2 and maybe 1/30th...the light is very low! Modern film is very good at 400 and 800. Digital will have finer grain, but the M9 is not the D3s...</p>

<p>In any case, if you are going to buy it all new, I would say from a value standpoint the M9 is the way to go. You can get used MP's and other Leica cameras for a fraction of what you would pay for the a la carte, but even a used M9 is going to cost 6500 USD or so. If you don't have a huge preference either way for film or digital, digital is nicer for travel since you don't need to worry about carrying around the film, xrays, getting it processed abroad etc etc. </p>

<p>Economical with brand new a la carte, MP's, M9, noctilux, summiluxes? Geeeeeez, I used a hexar rf, M6 and couple of a voigtlanders, a hexannon, a kobalux and 2 'luxes? Would you call me "superduper cheap" or what:)))</p>

<p>A most insane post though good luck with your purchases...</p>

<p>So, you'd be willing to spend 10K for a Noktilux, but you want to justify the M9 purchase with the savings in film? Trust me, you will not save a penny by going digital (and I am a fan of digital and film). Your investments in digital accessories (software, storage, backups, etc. etc.) will be way more than you'd spend on film. You are way over-thinking this. Get whatever camera and system you really want - the amount of money you are willing to spend makes this discussion somewhat ridiculous.</p>

<p>Most of us bought our Leicas to take pictures. Although some of my Leica equipment was purchased new, my best shots were taken with used Leicas. Do you want to make photographs or acquire status symbols?</p>

<p>Thanks Stuart, that was the answer I needed.</p>

<p>Isn't the definition of economical somewhat subjective? True, spending 10k on something is never quite economical. But to a homeless person, a meal at macdonald's is probably as non-economical as it gets. But to you and me or the average joe. It's probably cheap.</p>

<p>And I wouldn't call anyone 'cheap'. Again that's your preference. Insane? Please define insane. Anyway, regardless of the answers, thanks.</p>

<p>Edit: Take photographs. Did I mention anywhere that I wanted to show off? I think not. Perhaps you could spend some of that money on reading lessons and stop attacking the person that asked a question. Sheesh.</p>

<p>Bryan,<br>

Do you have any way to actually handle these items before you make a purchase?</p>

<p>You may find, as I have with other makes of equipment, that the lenses with more modest apertures not only represent a significant savings on the initial purchase price, they have fewer aberrations (laws of optics being what they are), and most significantly are SMALLER and LIGHTER! Smaller is good with an RF camera, because the fast glass have big barrels that block parts of your viewfinder. Carrying all that heavy glass around soon makes you wonder why you bought such high speed lenses. Unless you shoot almost exclusively at night, or in dimly lit theaters, I would go with a Summicron over a Noctilux as my usual lens.</p>

<p>I'd love to get an MP too - I've thought they were super sexy cameras ever since they came out. But, I'm willing to wait until a clean used one comes up for sale. At that point, if I don't abuse and mar up the camera, the price will basically have plateaued to around my purchase price. If I sell it a decade from now, I can still recover a substantial portion of my outlay, even in inflation adjusted amounts. </p>

<p>Digital cameras have a tendency, as will other consumer electronics, to plummet in price very rapidly - especially when the next new model shows up. How many people want to get a Nikon D1 now - used to be $5000 in the early part of this century? I remember when it was the cat's meow. People on the Nikon forum were encouraging me to get a D2 when it showed up. I've stuck with film so far.</p>

<p>M9 does look very nice, but I'll no doubt be looking to purchase one second hand, about 5 years from now :-)</p>

<p>For now, my only Leicas are thread mounts - IIF and IIIG with appropriate vintage glass, supplemented with CV lenses bought new. I still get tons of fun from them, and they are tiny.</p>

<p>Looking at economy in the long term, the MP can continue to function for decades longer than the M9: assuming that you can still get film for it, that is. At this time, in India at any rate, film works out cheaper if prints are wanted. Time spent is an important part of that economy. I use mainly film when I intend to give prints to people, and mainly digital when I aim to sell TIFF or JPEG files. As you say, the idea of economy varies from person to person. My views are no doubt coloured by the fact that the only Leicas I can afford are an M3 and a IIIa.</p>

<p>As you want to buy brand new, I don't think economical is really of the greatest importance to you, but the questions of (1) how would a Leica M fit your needs and (2) whether film or digital, might be. Mukul's point about the physical longevity of the MP might be important. If you are near a large city and Leica seller, you might simply rent one fast lens (according to your perspective needs, that might range between a 21mm f1.4 and a 75mm f1.4) and rent also two bodies, either the M7 or MP, as well as an M8 or M9. It may cost a couple hundred or more for a few days to a week and the necessary insurance, but you could gain a better idea of what Leica system you might be happiest with. Sure, you won't explore all the facets, advantages and problems with each, but you will get a better idea than any preferences that we might have <em>(I shoot with a IIIf, f1.5 lens and separate viewer, or with an M4-P and 35mm aspherical, most from the used market, or an M8 purchased new, so I am not in a position to actually compare the more updated gear you are considering)</em></p>

<p>Since you are wavering between film and digital it tells me you are not a die hard film shooter. The future of photography is with digital. Go that way. You will appreciate it at the airport for sure as film is a pain. I shoot film and digital using the same lenses, software and I think digital is much cheaper then film. The cost of film and processing add up to much more then you might think. My workflow comes out to about $13.00 a roll total cost for 35mm. If you actually shot 100,000 pictures that would be $36,000 dollars. It's hard to say what the future of film is but I could see the MP sitting on a shelf useless in 10 years due to the collapse of film or the cost and difficulty being so great that you just give it up. So I think you should buy the M9 new or if you really want to shoot film then buy a used M6 in nice condition and shoot that with the plan of buying a digital M sometime in the future. I have to laugh at myself giving advice to a wealthy person on how to spend money. I think I will go have a cup of coffee and chuckle about it.</p>

<p>Robert,</p>

<p>I do have a place where I can physically handle the bodies, but not the lenses. As I've said, my local dealers are flat out of stock on every lens on my checklist(ones that I want to buy, and ones that are alternatives, the Noctilux is an alternative.) That's actually what I was gunning for with this topic, but I regret that I didn't make it clear enough. Would the smaller and slightly slower lenses make for a better buy? Since the whole RF philosophy as I see it is to have small quiet cameras with you everywhere. I recently shot several rolls while in India on an old Spotmatic with a 35/2 lens. It made me realise that more often than not I wanted a wider angle for landscape and a 50 for most things. Environmental portraits were the only redeeming factor for the 35 in my opinion. I know that it's an SLR, but I really craved that extra stop(f/1.4) on most occasions.</p>

<p>And yes, I'm well aware of digital rot. Which really makes me hesitant, if it were not the case, I'd jump on the M9.</p>

<p>Also Mukul, yes I'm in the habit of giving prints to people. As it is, I'm trying to sort through rolls of negatives now to see which to print, and on what type of paper(some probably will be on silver paper) and how many to mail to each person on my list.</p>

<p>I made it clear in a previous thread. But a few reasons I want to buy into the Leica M system is how much I love film especially B/W. And the Leica M is probably the best in that field, for 35mm film at any rate. I want to cut down on the cameras I have and just buy one camera and a lens(though I'll probably throw in a VC 21/4 lens too). The Leica MP fits that bill almost perfectly. If there was an SLR that is built as good and with as fine a selection of lenses, and of course, with nearly the same dimensions. I'd have a harder time choosing.</p>

<p>There are a number of factors of course, some inane and some very real. But I guess what's nagging at me now, is my recent experience in India. Most of the time, especially in the evenings or with bad weather, I wanted to be able to shoot at f/1.4. Whether it was because of the dim light or that I wanted even less DOF than f/2 would allow, it doesn't really matter. This is perhaps the only reason why I even considered the M9. As far as I know, there's no way I can shoot a roll of ISO 400 film at varying ISO speeds as and when I want.</p>

<p>Edit: Wealthy or not, seeking advise always made the most sense. Practical or financial. Thanks.</p>

<p>The difference in DoF between f2 and f1.4 is very small. Here's the technical data on the 50mm Summilux...</p>

<p><a href="http://en.leica-camera.com/assets/file/download.php?filename=file_1769.pdf">http://en.leica-camera.com/assets/file/download.php?filename=file_1769.pdf</a></p>

<p>Scroll to page 5 and check out the numbers. For example, at closest focus of 0.7m, DoF is 15mm at f1.4, and 20mm at f2. At 1.5m, 76mm and 104mm. f1.4 buys you about 25% less DoF compared to f2. You can't see this difference in the viewfinder, and it varies continuously for whatever focus distance you're using. Carrying the charts or a table of numbers in the field (or even an interpolated graph) would, to my mind, get in the way of taking pictures. I can't see the sense in spending an extra grand or whatever, putting up with the extra weight and bulk, and possible finder blockage, just to get a 25% reduction - that I can't preview - of what will already be a very narrow DoF at f2. If I was considering a lux or cron, I'd be considering it on the basis of whether the extra stop of light was worth having.</p>

<p>Regarding the question of film vs digital, what are you buying, and why are you buying it? If you love using film, then why buy a digital that will be out of date in a few years? I love using film, my M2 is 48 years old, and it isn't out of date. The thing about digital is that it is not a mature technology - it is very much going through the development phase where each iteration is markedly better than the last. Film, by contrast, has been around for over a century - and the application of emulsion to a flexible substrate came after 60 years of development of the basic chemical processes. Digital is somehere in the middle of that first 60 years. When sensor technology makes its next leap, and delivers 30-40mpix or whatever, and with dynamic range to rival (or better) silver halide emulsion, today's whizz-bang M9 will be old tech and worth far less than today's MP will after the same number of years. Unless you buy your film 100 rolls at a time, and use them up rapidly, I don't think there is an economic argument for getting an M9.</p>

<p>Economics aside, there are practical pros and cons for each. With film, you have to carry it around and get it processed. With digital, you have to mess around with downloading images and constantly keeping batteries charged. <br>

<br>

If small and light is the key to a good travel camera, I see no sense in getting the extra half stop a Noctilux has over a Summilux - too much extra weight, extra bulk, and, to my mind, a complete waste of money when virtually any film can withstand being underexposed by half a stop. If I really need more light, I'll lean against something and hand-hold at a slower shutter speed, and I'll do that long before I consider buying ridiculoously fast glass, especially at a price of something like an extra 7K for a mere half stop more. Good camera technique can save you thousands, and give you kit that is much easier to carry around.</p>

<p>Ultimately, you have to go for what you will be happy using. If film is what you're into, and if you don't have professional needs dictating the technology you use, then a film camera is what you should get.</p>

 

<p>Regarding low light shooting, a rangefinder camera can often be shot at much slower shutter speeds hand-held than an SLR. It doesn't have mirror flip and auto diaphragm closing action to deal with. I can shoot my Nikon F3 hand held down to about 1/15 with reasonable sharpness. I've been able to use 1/8 with my Barnacks.</p>

<p>For slower shutter speeds, I'd just consider a nice tripod and cable release. A tiny travel tripod doesn't cost much, can be propped up almost anywhere, and folds compactly. Leica cameras are so light, any little tripod will do.</p>

<p>Go for the M9 & Summicron 35 or 50. Because of the highly accurate RF system, f2 is not just an emergency aperture with chancy focusing accuracy as with the old Spotmatic Takumars on an SLR.<br>

It's lovely to have something new, but you don't want to degrade it by excess. If that satisfies your lust for something pretty and new, you could then go for a clean M6 for film. Most M6's will have been cared for well enough to effectively have the same life expectancy as a new MP.<br>

That's because in 1954, photographers had to wait for their M3's like we have had to wait for M9's, and most wanted them to stay as sweet as they were, so they only got moderate use and were looked after.<br>

A purchaser of a clean M3 still will have reasonable expectations that it will remain in good working order for an undefined time, at the age of up to 55 years. You can't do much better than that.</p>

 

<p>I would take advantage of both digital and film worlds, Bryan. Purchase a new Leica M9 and a nice used Leica film camera. Relative to the Leica M9, you can purchase a used Leica M6 inexpensively. Having experienced both mediums, digital is far more convent to shoot whether traveling or not, in my opinion.</p>

<p>Film is a different, perhaps more cumbersome and laborious experience, but still a good one. Shoot, process, and scan film yourself, (If B&W that is), or have it done for you at one of the increasingly scarce professional labs who specialize in this service. Personally, I shoot color film and have it processed and scanned at <a href="http://shop.costco.com/en/Photo-Center/Index.aspx">Costco</a>, a big box store, for almost nothing. I convert my color film images to B&W in my iPhoto editing program, if desired. For my purposes of emailing or posting on the Internet I find the scan quality adequate. I have a film scanner, but have never taken it out of the box.</p>

<p>I suggest buying the Leica M9 which you obviously covet, and also look for a nice used Leica M6 or other Leica film camera and enjoy both worlds. Should you decide to sell the Leica film camera after using it for awhile, you are likely to get the majority of your money back. In fact, you may make a profit.</p>

<p>With the kind of photography I do these days, I just could not justify buying a Leica M9 but I would sure love to have one. Actually, my Nikon D90 is infinitely more camera than I need. :-)</p>

<p>Which medium is more economical? It depends entirely upon the amount of shooting you do and the extent of support equipment you purchase for each.</p>

<p>Agree w/Robert. I'd look at a 35mm lux asph a great fast lens.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone, for the responses. Especially Mr. Hooper and Nomad. You both drive very convincing points of view and I enjoyed reading through them thoroughly. Although I am still undecided, indecisiveness was always a character flaw I suffer from. Indecisive when it comes to buying something.</p>

<p>The only real issue I have with the very good advice on buying both systems. Film and digital, is really how I want to get everything new. New camera, new lenses. It's not about having money so much as wanting the initial experience to have as much novelty and pleasure as possible. I think it's a good idea though, to buy 2 cameras, not that much more expensive. I just can't afford nor justify buying 2 cameras BRAND NEW.</p>

<p>Although this brings another question into play. Does the 50 Summilux block the viewfinder? A friend has the old 35 'lux and that blocks his viewfinder a fair bit. Which to be honest, I'm not very excited about.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>(50 noctilux, 50 and 35 'lux, 35 'cron)</p>

</blockquote>

<p> Can you explain a little further as to why you think you want both a 35 Summilux and a Summicron? I'm not sure I understand the reasoning. I use Summicrons or Elemarits as I usually shoot with a lot of depth of field, and I like the sharpness and higher contrast of the Summicrons. If you think you want to do portraits, then I can understand the Summilux in a 50 as the f/1.4 will give you a softness that cannot be found with the Summicron. I think you need to think about what you want to shoot and tailor your lens choices to the anticipated subjects instead of duplicating focal lengths in two different lens designs.</p>

<p>Steve, you have it utterly mixed up. I explained this already. Those are lenses I consider buying, but some are alternatives. For example, I wanted a 50 'lux. But since that's out of stock, I then thought about having a 50 Nocti, then a 35 'lux, then a 35 'cron, then a 50 'cron.</p>

<p>Of all of them, I'd only buy one. It was just that since everything is out of stock, I brought out every alternative I could think of.</p>

<p>i'm not joking when i say this, but wouldn't it be cheaper for you to take a weekend off and fly from singapore to hong kong or even nyc and buy everything at a better price there and fly back? </p>

<p>i've moved around a lot (including singapore) but i always make my big purchases in new york city. once i bought a projector in the UK when the british pound was really weak.</p>

<p>You know, that actually sounds like a really good idea. Just running stuff by the a la carte configurator with different countries. And for reasons unknown, Singapore is one of the most expensive. I thought of it, and it'd be nice to do it if I were to say be in any of those places. Sure wish I had money when I was in Europe for 4 months last year, but sad to say I didn't.</p>

<p>I'll think about it. Thanks for the suggestion!</p>

<p>IMHO get a used M! They are there,they all work, sort of or need a small but expensive service. A M6 probably best because it has a meter. To the smart guy who felt it was a hit and miss focus with a Pentax Spotmatic and Super Takumar lens let me tell you something. In available light there is the possibilities of flare. Using a Leica you are bound to find that flare losing a photo! My Pentaxes have been way more reliable, better working in all conditions and the lenses no way inferior.Flare? What flare! My Summicron,Summilux all lost frames in flare blow outs. Having used Noctilux, all I can repeat," why pay so much,for soft, little detail photos?" The feeling was "underwhelmed".I have never been disappointed in my Pentax or Nikon. Sadly my Leicas record has me knowing first names and some family members of Leica repair people around the globe.</p>

<p>If you want to take good pictures, get a used M6 or M3 with a 50 summicron and a bag full of Tri-X (or, better yet, any other classic mechanical camera, like the Spotmatic or FM). The camera will not be all that easy to use at first, but over time it will make you a better photographer. <br>

If you want an "experience" I suggest you buy an M9 and a 50mm Noctilux 0.95. That way you will have purchased the most expensive, exclusive gear Leica offers right off the bat and you won't waste even more time and money climbing the hedonic treadmill. <br>

It should be noted that the satisfaction of the M9/MP + Noctilux will start to fade very quickly, because eventually you'll realize it's just another expensive gadget that doesn't do anything a million other cameras do equally well. Nothing stays new forever. <br>

Meanwhile, the satisfaction of the used M will only grow over time as your photographs get better. </p>

<p> "To the smart guy who felt it was a hit and miss focus with a Pentax Spotmatic and Super Takumar lens let me tell you something."<br>

Jason, I also use a Pentax Spotmatic, and that's how I feel. It wasn't a personal slight. I didn't expect the equivalent of outrage when I pointed out that an M series rangefinder has more accurate focus for 50mm lenses. I just wouldn't expect to be reliably able to bump up a full aperture 50mm 1.8 Takumar neg to A4 or A3 with any degree of sharpness.<br>

I appreciate the fact that flare is harder to avoid in an RF camera. In my opinion that's because you can't see what the lens sees, so it's harder to appreciate the effect of strong light sources from inside or outside the frame. I still, in general, prefer Leica lenses to Takumars.</p>

<p>Ok, so after a weekend spent with a fellow photography enthusiast(namely my uncle, who is a lot wealthier than I). I've decided on the MP. But with the risk of the original question going slightly off-topic. I just want to ask this, because for me it seems clear as day in my head, but people here keep going on about how I don't need a 'lux to use film.</p>

<p>Yes the 'lux is larger, heavier and more expensive. But isn't it the best lens(50mm) money can buy? And won't it allow for more shots in low light? Yes an RF can be handheld at slower speeds than an SLR. But if a lens can go to f/1.4, aren't you always capable of a stop faster in speed? And wasn't it the whole philosophy of buying an M-mount camera, that you could use M-mount lenses? Yes no one is stopping me from buying anything. But I really want to know if using a 'cron(smaller size, lesser weight, smaller filters, less VF blockage I'm assuming) is really a better deal over a 1 stop difference in speed. That's my question now and I want your opinion.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance!</p>