Replacing M6 with a digital?

[yeffe]

Last week, at a wedding, I got involved in conversation while changing film in my M6 and felt so cool and professional for not having to

take my eyes off the person I was talking to. Pride goeth before a fall and in my case it meant opening the back without first rewinding the

film.

 

A search of digital alternatives led to a dead end. I need a compact and lightweight camera taking M mount lenses (but 4/3 is OK) but the

M8 is fraught with issues for its (for me, unaffordable) price point and the rest of the field (D-Lux3, Digilux) has draw-backs of weight and

non lens-interchangability that rule them out. More compact models have tiny sensors and slow lenses, shutter latency,etc.

 

Anyone else facing this dilemma? Any advice?

[starvy]

rd1 seems like an only option if pixel count is not an issue.

 

how about getting an olympus e420 for the moment to keep you going for the moment. it is light and compact and the lenses are not too bad. since you are used to manual focus, slowly focus speed is not an issue really.

[henryp]

Everyone who's ever shot 35mm has at least once popped the back prematurely. I'm not sure that alone wold make me

abandon my cherished Nikon (or Leica in your case) film cameras.

 

AFAIK the only digicam which will use Leica-M lenses is the M8 you don't want, so you're effectively starting

from zero and could buy into any brand/system you choose. If you have patience you could even wait and see what

the <a href="http://www.photo.net/digital-camera-shopping-forum/00QP9u">"Micro Four Thirds"</a> format Olympus /

Panasonic announced earlier this month brings. <p>

 

-- <br>

Henry Posner <br>

<b>B&H Photo-Video</b>

[joshroot]

<i>"AFAIK the only digicam which will use Leica-M lenses is the M8 you don't want"</i>

<p>

Incorrect. The only "currently available new" digicam that will use Leica M lenses is the M8. However, the discontinued Epson R-D1 also uses M-mount lenses and is a pretty cool camera. There is a photo.net <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/epson/epson_rd1_longterm">review of the R-D1 here</a> and an older <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/epson/rd1/">"first look" here</a>.

<p>

Megapixels are low at 6. But people need to remember that lots of us were selling double page spreads in national magazines with 6mp dslr's. Megapixels aren't everything. The R-D1 is a good camera. And if I came across one at a good price, I'd be tempted to own one again.

[joshroot]

But overall, I would tend to agree with Henry regarding popping the back. Anyone who has shot 35mm film has done that at least once. And digital isnt' immune to screwups. Wait until you format a card you thought you had downloaded to the computer. Just as troublesome.

[yeffe]

Thanks so much for these quick and helpful responses.

 

I should add that popping the back on exposed film isn't the only problem I face: it was just the latest reminder of the

hassles of film. Developing b/w film and scanning the best shots is a time-consuming process and at least doubles storage

and filing necessities.

 

I love low-light work and have two aspherics (35mm 1.4 and 24mm 2.8) plus a 75mm 1.4 for these purposes. Develop

HP5+ in Diafine at 800 EI. So you see my parameters and my problems. I'm going to look into the Epson.<div></div>

[ronald_moravec1]

With digi, you forget to change white balance and exposure is more critical. The better digicams are quite large and so are the lenses.

 

Ok, you screwed up once. It happens.

[wgpinc]

I recommend that you get one of the new small body DSLR and dip your feet into digital inexpensively. You might be in for some big surprises. I can personally suggest a Canon XSi body with the very fine Canon 35mm 2.0 lens (gives you an effective focal length of 56mm) at about $870 for a small 25 ounce package. There's a learning curve with digital but worthwhile, and for some of us older guys it tweaks the brain cells in a good way to learn new things. With this small investment (for a Leica owner) you can get into the world of digital and explore whether it has something for you or not. We'd all like a $2500 Leica digital that would use our existing lenses but don't hold your breath. Might as well get your feet wet. Good luck.

[steve_bellayr]

An affordable Leica digital that takes the older M lenses & has no issues...wouldn't that be wonderful!

[robert_haller]

... I know the ups and downs of analogue - still I dont recommend to change - and why ...??

 

... simply, as there are no mass chances to take the best picture - there are several - and when you are true to yourself,

beeing selective is the better option.

Have a 1.4 75 as well and you have to be very good to do it at 1.4 - full concentration indeed - but in the end, this is the

goal - to shoot several and have some excellent ones ...

[yeffe]

Gil:

 

I was one of the earliest buyers of the Nikon D70 which I still have. It is my overall workhorse and I really love it. But

compact, light, and quiet it is not. For that matter, an M6 with a 35mm or 75mm 'Lux is no lightweight either. I'm so much

more likely to leave the house with a 50mm 'Chron for that reason. I've got an older 35mm f/2 Nikkor which gives me a very

nice fast normal lens. But I want it all!<div></div>

[yeffe]

"this is the goal - to shoot several and have some excellent ones ..."

 

I know I've stressed b/w but my experience with the Nikon digital is that I'm much more uninhibited by cost (as there is

none) when shooting color as opposed to the 50 cents or so it costs me for each transparency from the Leica. The quality

from a Leica transparency is unequivocally superior but also entails the expense, scanning, and double-filing.

 

At this point I can hear a collective groan: 'why doesn't he just live with the compromises he has on hand and get on with

it?' It would be excellent advice.

[larry_kincaid2]

I'll give you the same advice my wife gave me before moved from M6 to M8: "Now is the time you want to use it, so buy the M8 now . . . and then start dividing the cost by the total number of shots you take and by the number of months that pass by. You'll soon discover that the cost per shot taken goes down dramatically (the first one is US $5,000) over time as does the cost per month." Great wife, no? [Of course, she does this when she buys clothes too.] And this does not take into account the zero cost per roll of film, per roll processed, and high cost of your labor to scan and adust in photoshop. As I responded to my wife, "You mean the sooner I buy the M8 the sooner it becomes a cheap camera?" Hey, the M3 was expensive in its time, as was the M6. The cost of the camera for each shot on those must be practically zero. Believe it or not, she said the same thing every time I bought another Leica lens; now they've all turned into good investments, especially the 75mm Lux. Let us know what you end up doing. The M8 will solve your problem, by the way. You didn't say how old you are, but Ben Franklin said it all when he remarked, "The only thing you have left at the end is time, so you better start using it wisely now."

[nzdavid]

How many M lenses do you have? With an M8 you can still use them.

[anthony_brookes5]

The Digilux 2 has a 28-90mm Summicron so your interchangeability is not a problem within that focal range. The images are superb up to A3.

[Alex_Es]

Keep your M6. If you are well healed, adventurous and masochistic enough eventually you'll get an M8. No problems

about not winding the film properly and accidentally opening up the back. But there are others that will pull you back to

film. The RD-1s is a neat camera but it is discontinued and getting it serviced a problem.

[lex_bosman1]

I'd keep the M6 as well, that's what I did. Scanning and storing material may be time-consuming, but ther's a lot to be done in digital as well. I love my Leica's too much to get rid of film, and I still like it to take pictures and worry about the quality later, after the film is developed. I really like the combination of shooting on film with scanned results to use them digitally.

[Robin Smith]

How about the Panasonic Lumix DMC L1 or its Leica equivalent? Great fast Leica zoom lens and takes 4/3 lenses. Styled rather like a classic film camera. A neat but perhaps idiosyncratic camera. I don't have one, but think it intriguing. The current Lumix equivalent is a much lesser camera.

[chris_raney1]

You'll never own a better film camera than the M6. And you'll never be able to keep up with the technological Joneses if you buy into the current digital wonder. I'm going the route you're about to abandon: shooting Leica film cameras then scanning the negatives for posting. Leica film cameras are more durable and more reliable than any digital gizmo that will ever be produced in our lifetimes. And it's nice to have solid, compact equipment that isn't--not withstanding a functioning meter--dependent upon the fickleness of batteries.

 

I've been developing and printing black & white for several years now; and I am former president of Houston's oldest amateur photography club. I've show internationally. I've met and rubbed shoulders with photographic greats. And recently I picked up one of my SLRs and shot several frames with an empty camera. Stupidity happens to anyone at any time. Don't scrap your precise and precious mechanicals for battery-queens.

[harvey_edelstein1]

The mini 4/3 needs an 18mm lens to give you a 36mm FOV. How many rectilinear lenses are that wide only 1 I know of.

 

Most of my lenses would be useless. Surely with all the Leica M lenses that were made there must be some company who will come up with a M mount. Fujifilm could make a supersensor based rangefinder with live view.

 

Fuji is experienced in rangefinders and in making digital cameras this should not be a challenge for them to make a 1.2 x crop factor camera thats 30mm x 24mm with the same pixel pitch as their last supersensor camera. That would give the camera the equivalent of a 12mp camera.

[yeffe]

"Don't scrap your precise and precious mechanicals for battery-queens."

 

I've reviewed the tapes and made my decision:

 

I'm staying with my current set-up for now. There's nothing out there that would replace the M body (except the nearly

unobtainable RD1) and provide a significant advantage for me over my Nikon D-70. Indeed, if I were to sell all my Leica

gear in favor of a digital solution, my best bet would be a DSLR with a passel of f/2 and f1/4 primes. This would leave me

with lots of pocket change.

[el_fang]

<i>You'll never own a better film camera than the M6.</i>

<p>Until you need macro, superwide, telephoto, or a generally reliable camera that doesn't crap out with a

rangefinder misalignment, shutter jam or battery short at the worst possible moment. Horses for courses.</p>

 

<p><i>And you'll never be able to keep up with the technological Joneses if you buy into the current digital

wonder. I'm going the route you're about to abandon: shooting Leica film cameras then scanning the negatives for

posting.</i></p>

<p>You'd also have to be stupid enough to buy into the camera manufacturers' marketing schemes. On the other

hand, if you want to look at time and money saved (ever actually timed how long it takes to scan a single frame

of film?) over hundreds and thousands of frames shot, digital comes out ahead for photographers, with the

disparity being especially vast if you're shooting color. Film still beats digital for collectors, though.</p>

 

<p><i>Leica film cameras are more durable and more reliable than any digital gizmo that will ever be produced in

our lifetimes.</i></p>

<p>Now there's a statement that just rings of factual impartiality, right?</p>

 

<p><i>And it's nice to have solid, compact equipment that isn't--not withstanding a functioning meter--dependent

upon the fickleness of batteries.</i></p>

<p>Spare batteries aren't hard to carry, and together with memory cards take up a lot less space than film. I'd

rather not be dependent on the fickleness of temperature- and xray-sensitive materials and the fickleness of

having to wait longer and longer to get less and less consistent results when I get around to sending said

materials to the lab.</p>

 

<p><i>Stupidity happens to anyone at any time.</i></p>

 

<p>Only thing you've said that makes any sense.</p>

[el_fang]

<i>(ever actually timed how long it takes to scan a single frame of film?)</i>

<p>To take this a little further:</p>

<p>1. Start your stopwatch.

<br>2. Take a picture onto film using your precious M6.

<br>3. Develop and dry the negative.

<br>4. Scan the negative.

<br>5. Clone and repair (since Digital ICE does not work on B&W negs).

<br>6. Stop your stopwatch, note the time.

<p>7. Start stopwatch again.

<br>8. Take a picture using any digital (D70 is fine)

<br>9. Take memory card out and plug it into your card reader.

<br>10. Upload pictures into your computer.

<br>11. Stop your stopwatch, note the time.

<p>12. Compare result (11) with result (6).

<br>13. Ask self: "How much is my time worth to me?"

[yeffe]

El:

 

I can depend on how you view the process and what rewards you expect. Take this metaphor, for instance:

 

1: Till soil Add compost. Plant tomato seeds. Install cages. Water. Wait 90 days. Harvest your own tomatoes. Enjoy.

Remember that Summer you grew your own food.

 

2: Go to grocery store. Buy tomatoes. Bring them home and enjoy. Forget about it.

 

Yes, scanning is a pain and whoever said that an M8 would pay for its self in time via money not layed out for film was

right about that too. But time saved isn't everything and developing b/w in compensating or A/B developers yields a tonal

scale unobtainable digitally. By scanning such negatives twice for shadows and midtone-highlights and layering in

Photoshop, you can bring out tonal qualities you'd never see in a RAW file. Of course its time-consuming but I'm not a

deadline oriented photographer.If I was, there'd be no question about it.

[steve_larese1]

Keep your M6:

 

http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00QcH3