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

[charles_hess2]

<p>No. I've used and loved my M6, now an M6TTL for years. I've had absolutely no interest in the M8/9, as I get what I need out of digital with a D700.</p>

[raymond_tai]

<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.<br>

If stealth photography is what you want to do then there are no better tools than the current crop of digicams. I am having such a blast with my new Ricoh GR Digital III I am wondering if I really need anything else. OK maybe that new Canon G11 too. I got into Leica RF's for the compactness but these digicams really improved on that aspect.</p>

 

[scott_stadler]

<p>I would use the new ones, but I would not give up my trusty M4 that is older than I am. Even with all its dents, and chipped off vulcanite. No one usually even gives me a second thought with that camera since it is so beat up looking.</p>

[doug herr]

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=504727">Vivek .</a> wrote: <em>"I would get rid of the Bayer filter in one..."</em></p>

<p > </p>

<p >??? what Bayer filter?</p>

[george_shihanian]

<p>By asking your question in that way, you are assuming we actually want a M9. Add my vote to the <strong>HELL NO!</strong> crowd.</p>

[vivek iyer]

<p>Doug, Do you know something about the purported M9 and if its sensor does not have a Bayer color filter (in whatever form)?</p>

<p>I am de-Bayering a sensor from another system for real use.</p>

[doug herr]

<p>Vivek, are you converting the camera to B&W only?</p>

[vivek iyer]

<p>Indeed, Doug. (I am sticking to the topic Alex started).</p>

<p>With many digital camera from over the years, it is one good way to put them (back) to use.</p>

<p>The M9 is truly exciting news for me.</p>

[edward_zimmermann]

<p>Film is still viable since it still has the lower cost and higher quality side of the equation. Digital is about speed but speed is not always valued, especially not among amateurs. Film is cheap and its never been cheaper. Most all of us shooting film have refrigerators filled with cheap materials but even going retail good quality films are still cheap. Here in Germany, for instance, Kodak Elite Chrome 100 cost at the drugstore (in a non Kodak box) 2,75 EURO (that's including 19% VAT) and development is just under 2 EURO. Negative film? Kodak Farbwelt (the German variant of Gold) is even cheaper.. Even the new Ektar 100 film can be purchased for about 4 EUROs each. In B/W one can not just shoot with the standards in the 35mm KB cartridges but there are microfilms, traffic films and motion picture stocks available at attractive prices to be had. Updates in emulsions (like Ektar 100) just mean a new film and no need to replace the camera :-)<br>

Mechanical cameras are also much more reliable and robust then anything we've ever seen in digital. There resale values are already at bottom (if not now climbing again) so their cost of ownership are effectively small. The cost of ownership of a Leica M9 will not be low. Just like the M8 is about to be "last years model" we'll see the M9 become "last years model" as soon as its gotten its "bugs" ironed out. Who in digi-land today wants to use a EOS 1D, a camera that in 2002 listed for nearly $8000 USD?<br>

Add into any mix the depreciation of digital gear, the cost of upgrades and service, the cost of energy to get them working... Is a M9 a replacement for film cameras? Absolutely not, especially when someone has to pay $$$ for it...</p>

[doug herr]

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=448865">Edward Zimmermann</a> wrote: <em> "Film is still viable since it still has the lower cost and higher quality side of the equation."</em></p>

<p ><em></em></p>

<p >An over-generalization. Film is still viable in many circumstances but for what I do the DMR has replaced my color film use almost 100% with much higher quality.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >The gallery owner I met with a couple of weeks ago might agree: the prints I brought to our meeting were a mix of film and DMR, all printed with LightJet or Durst laser printers on RA4 photographic paper; he made several remarks about the color quality and detail of the larger prints and asked what equipment I was using (he hadn't heard of the DMR). At the end of our meeting the prints he selected for the gallery were all made with the 4-year-old DMR.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Back almost on-topic, I've kept a couple of Leicaflex SL bodies but it seems they're for nostalgia's sake. The DMR has been totally reliable for the 3.5 years I've been using it, and now that I have a backup DMR the SL rarely leaves the shelf. I'd love to be using the presumed M9 sensor in an R10 but apparently that's not going to happen.</p>

[charlie_chan2]

<p>Like Doug, I'm a DMR user. However, I like my M2 and M6TTL (as well as my CLE!). They are different beast though. I just love my M2 - buttery smooth and just silent (unlike a M8 or M8.2). Now if the M9 were silent, now that would be a different matter. But then again, there's something fabulous about B&W film.</p>

<p>Charlie</p>

[andy_piper2]

<p>Practically speaking, I gave up my film RFs for a Sony R-1 four years ago - as a stop-gap awaiting the M8. Traded off the last (and my first) M4-2 sometime after the M8 came out - either for a lens or for my second M8, can't remember for sure.</p>

<p>I'll probably give up my small cheap Hassy system for the M9.</p>

 

[rroberto]

<p>May I have 2 please? Address to ship them to available on request.</p>

[MTC Photography]

<p>I gave up film two years ago, too much trouble going thru airports ( 7 to 9 airports on a trip), and carrying exposed and unexposed film takes out too much luggage space. I took on average more than 6 thousand pictures in a one month trip, about 250 rolls, not possible with film cameras</p>

<p> </p>

[edward_zimmermann]

<p>Martin Tai's 6000 pictures during a trip? And how many of them "takers"? Given a rough estimate of max. 4 hours per day of photographing during a trip and 6 days/week that comes out to under 100 hours photographing. Assuming that you did nothing more than click-click that's around 1 picture per minute! Photographing 1 picture per minute, 4 hours per day, 6 days of the week, for a whole month...!!!! Or are many overwhelmingly just motion photographs ("video")?... 6000 frames @25fps comes out to 4 hours of video.<br>

The fundamental question, I think, in all these discussions of Leica M?, rangefinders, etc. is use. A photo journalist--- with some really rare exceptions--- has no alternative but to use a "latest greatest" digital camera and submit via laptop/UMTS. Leica M cameras used to be the iconic photo journalist camera. Today its more often than not a high-end Canon digital SLR--- and a new one (trade-in) every 6 months to 1 year. Once upon a time many journalists carried miniature typewriters into the field (like a Hermes Baby), today its cell phones, satellite phones, miniature computers or plain ordinary paper and pen... or cellular communicators with built-in 5 Mpixel (this week) cameras.. There is little place today in a journalists bag for Leica M cameras or typewriters.<br>

Fine art, family, hobby etc. photographing is neither about transfer speed nor quantity... The typical joke about family photographs one was that a roll of film contained pictures of more than one season. Even with digital capture today its still not about (at least if people understand the implications) a final digital end object but about either film or paper as end product.</p>

[michael_khano2]

<p>A forseeable M9 is great news, as was the announcement of the S2. For me personally, digital Leica (or anything else) does not come into question, rather, the fact that Leica is still around creating waves and mixing in with the big boys.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>The typical joke about family photographs one was that a roll of film contained pictures of more than one season.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My grandfather's films typically contained christmas images at either end with summer holidays in the middle. And only eight frames per roll!</p>

 

[nzdavid]

<p>"There is little place today in a journalists bag for Leica M cameras."<br>

That's a generalization. Film M cameras won't suit news journalists who have to fire stories back instantaneously. But if you are doing feature work, where the deadline is days or weeks away, there is absolutely no reason why you can't use film. Some magazines still use it extensively.</p>

 

[love4leica]

<p>I have 9 Leica Film Cameras and I am keeping them no matter what. Yes, horses for courses - I do have and use DSLR. If I was to name four all time classics, they would be Leica M3, Nikon F, Hasselblad CM500 and Rollieflex and I have one of each in excellent condition and they give me great joy.</p>

[paul_neuthaler]

<p>Take my M2/35 Summilux asph. from my dead, cold hands if you can unbend my fingers . . .</p>

[MTC Photography]

<p> I put my digital camera on 60 sec auto shut off. 60 sec is a long time, I shoot several pictures in a minute, not one pictue a minute. I contributed more than five hundred pictures on Chinese wikepedia and more then 350 photos on google earth, mostly from 12000 digital pictures taken in 2007-2008.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>Short answer: No</p>

[laurentvuillard]

<p>I'll probably say yes ith a full frame. But wait, something we all wait for will no doubt come for free : A review by our good Erwin ! He'll discuss all suttle features of MXX and M9! How will he feel the smoothness of the gear trains without a winding lever?? He'll have to discuss the glare of the back screen of the 9 when compared to the 8!</p>

[Rob F.]

<p>"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..."<br>

I have the same experience with my D200. I think the fact that it <em>is </em>a behemoth has quite a bit to do with that!</p>

[rossb]

<p>No, but since I can have all the M9's I wanted for free I would start selling them and be happy with my good fortune.</p>