If you could have all the M9s you wanted, would you give up your film RFs?

[Alex_Es]

<p>We need not debate the virtues of film vs digital here as innumerable threads that have covered that. My question is different. It theoretical for the majority of us. But just suppose you could have two or three M9 bodies. Provided that the M9 is going to be full-frame, would that be inducement enough to go completely digital--primarily for its obvious convenience? Even if that means giving up a number of film virtues. </p>

<p>If the Good Fairy gave me a couple of M9 bodies, what would I do? </p>

<p>I would continue shooting film. This has nothing to do with film vs digital quality. I only have a digital darkroom, which means I scan film. So for all intents I am a digital photographer who uses film cameras. My considerations are more lateral.</p>

<p>One thing I cannot overlook is my emotional attachment to my film cameras. That may seen silly but the fact is that if I got rid of my film cameras I'd be unhappy. Since I don't collect cameras for the sake of collecting but because they possess certain functions that I like, my emotional attachment has a utilitarian side. </p>

<p>I only use film RFs (and occasionally SLRs) for stealth photography. They are less obtrusive than my M8 and even RD-1s in ways that I won't go into here for the sake of brevity.</p>

<p>I also value the simplicity and durability of film RFs. They do not have delicate and expensive sensors that I dare not clean myself. They are not prone to obsolescence like digital cameras. Their batteries do not have to be changed after a day of shooting. If they break down they are easily and fairly cheaply repaired. </p>

<p>While I like the motor rewind on my M8, I also like using my Rapidwinders and Leicavit under many circumstances requiring speed and stealth.</p>

<p>The hypothetical Good Fairy aside, the M9 promises to be a bit of an elephant as it has to fit a larger FF sensor, which cannot go into an M8 body. It will be in some ways like the M5. s. Thus, while the M9 will be FF we as yet do not know what the ergonomics will be like, and they might be less than wonderful. Also, we as yet do not know if the viewfinder is going to be as large and as good at those found on Leica M</p>

<p>Getting back to reality, I cannot see myself dishing out seven or eight thousand dollars for a camera body. I expect to only admire the M9 from afar and rely on my film Ms for full frame images. </p>

 

[keith_b1]

<p>I gave up my film rangefinders a few years ago. No PKM, no Panatomic-X, no Agfa...= no film to shoot. Full frame digital CRF camera will fix this. BTW, if Nikon made it instead of Leica, it'd have better ergonomics and reliability.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Still would keep a film camera or 2.</p>

[maciek_stankiewicz]

<p> I am not going to start ABC versus XYZ but my answer is <strong>No</strong>. Hell No! :)</p>

[ilkka]

<p>If it was the same size and weight as M2,3,4,6 and as reliable, full frame that worked well with wide angles, I would give up using my film M6. But I would not give or sell it away. It is part of history and has sentimental value that can never be replaced by any digital.</p>

[ralph_jensen]

<p>"If you could have a <a href="http://images.businessweek.com/ss/08/08/0811_luxury_car_sales/7.htm">Lexus LS</a> , would you give up your <a href="http://www.chicagoclassiccars.com/inventory_show.asp?stknum=P76">Austin Healey 3000</a> ?"</p>

<p>No, I would not, because even though they ostensibly "do the same task," I would use each for different reasons.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Film and digital make a happy couple. Opposites do attract. I love shooting film, whether in a Barnack or M RF, but mainly in a 120 film RF like a Mamiya 6, sometimes in a Fuji 6x9. Not having a result right away induces me to think more about what I am photographing, how to photograph it and how to process it. Scanning is OK for rapid diffusion of the image or transfering chromes to print, but the darkroom experience and result is extremely appealing and a great process. An M9 would be OK for color, but Velvia or Fuji chromes also have their place.</p>

[travis1]

<p>If the M9s come free then I'll keep the film RFs.</p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>Yes I would give up film RFs.</p>

[r22eng]

<p>Even with an M9, I would still rely on my film cameras for most of my personal work. The purpose of personal work is enjoying the simple creative process. If the good fairy gave me a couple of M9s, I would use them like an M2 - LCD off.</p>

[Bill Blackwell Images]

"If you could have all the M9s you wanted, would you give up your film RFs?"

 

I already have... for the M8.

 

I still have an M6, but it never gets used.

[SolaresLarrave]

After I bought my Nikon D700 I thought my film cameras would languish... and for a few months, they did, but throughout

this last summer, I've used my two meterless Leicas more than my digital behemoth. Go figure...

[frederick_muller]

<p>My shooting wouldn't change. I already use the RD-1s for 60% of my shooting. If I had an M9, it would take time from my use of the RD-1s, not from the film bodies.</p>

[didier]

<p>No !<br>

Durability, joy of use, simplicity, etc... but also using a non-battery-dependant camera, makes me think I won't abandon my film Ms anytime soon.</p>

<p>Didier</p>

[HarryBaker]

<p>Since my pictures now are about 80% DSLR, 19+% M8 and the occasional M6 film, I doubt whether it would make any difference. It would replace the M8 and shift the digital balance a bit in its favour. If, to make the M9 full frame, the designers have had to make it bigger and look like a DSLR, then who knows.</p>

[nzdavid]

<p>I'm going to do a three-day hike in November; I'm taking M6 for reliability, simplicity, battery-free operation if needed, etc. No worries with cold weather, batteries, cards, etc -- though I shall need plenty of film. </p>

[bjscharp]

Depends: Is the M9's Bayer filter removable for B&W work? If not, that's one thing a film RF will do better...

[JamieK]

<p>Scharp Comment! Very good point. I even have an old EOS 1 (no letters) to take bw with Canon lenses. <br>

Anyway, you shouldn't have to worry about cameras. The M9 will be too expensive not to worry about.<br>

And I think you shouldn't worry so much about cleaning your sensor.<br>

Or just use the lenses wide open. They're Leica, after all.</p>

[vivek iyer]

<blockquote>

<p>If the Good Fairy gave me a couple of M9 bodies, what would I do?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would get rid of the Bayer filter in one, get the RF realigned and will use them both- if<br>

I would have no problems regarding the batteries, reliability of the camera, etc.</p>

<p>I will definitely <strong>NOT</strong> go for a sapphire screen (that would be extra cash, wouldn't it be?).</p>

[didier]

<p>Another thought : it would be sad if Leica completely gave up the film Ms. I hope they keep on making MPs and M7s !</p>

[astral]

<p>No. I'll never give up my Leica film cameras - "<em>From my cold, dead hand ...</em> " and I might yet even be dumb enough to buy a few more Barnacks, and possibly even an M7.</p>

<p>For me to buy a full-frame Leica M would need have much more modern features than the M8, and not be another mutant throw-back. Features like multipoint/average/spot metering, AE bracketing, focus confirmation (not full AF) ...... would make the camera interesting to me, but inevitably the price would be far more than I can justify in my lifetime.</p>

[peter_mann3]

<p>I haven't seen the M9 yet, but generally based on my use of the M8.2, I wouldn't consider going back to film for a minute. Film is dead except for some specialized professional uses, and those are probably diminishing as larger format digtital and perspective control devices some along. Or do you all want to go back to glass plates? However, I will keep an M7 and IIIc for nostalgia, along with my Hasselblad, a Rollei, a couple of point and shoot, my old Speed Graphic, three Nikons. Memories, and seductive fondling!</p>

[steve_harris10]

<p>I would definitely use my M6 a lot less, on economic grounds if nothing else.</p>

<p>I just came back from holiday with a bag full of E6 and B&W films, and the processing and scanning bill is large. Like the OP I get my films scanned, and work with the pictures digitally. Ontop of the development cost film is getting expensive, I could probably justify the cost of an M8 (over a few years) on that basis, but it has too many compromises.</p>

<p>I also took a D300 and G1 with me, but ended up using the M6 most, size/weight and ergonomics respectively won out.</p>

<p>I fear that the M9 will be 1) far too expensive, and 2) far too big.</p>

[miles1]

<p>Only if the sensor is of a cutting edge technology giving film-like latitude and acutance. A fairly reliable source tells me that something like that may happen in the M9</p>

[stuart_richardson]

<p>I am with Arthur -- there is definitely a place for both. It is not so much about one being definitely superior to another, it is about the shooting experience and the look they create. Film and digital look different, and there are times when each look is more appropriate...at least in my photography.<br /> Assuming the M9 is full frame and digital, and priced in some mildly realistic way, I will likely shoot it alongside a Mamiya 7 -- the M9 is primarily color and lower light, the Mamiya 7 is for black and white. Part of the lure of this type of kit over a DSLR is that you can fit a Mamiya 7 and 3 lenses (43, 80, 150) and an M9 and 2-4 lenses in one moderately small shoulder bag. You can bring it anywhere and get a high MP digital and a 6x7 film kit, both with the best lenses available. Carrying an equivalent SLR kit (D3/x/1DsIII/5dII/A900 etc or RZ-67/Pentax 6x7) would require a giant trolley.</p>