A friendly observation regarding digital & film M bodies

[bobby_novatron]

Hello all,

I'm not looking to raise anyone's dander here, but I just thought I'd offer a friendly observation. Before i begin, let me say that I respect both the digital and analog photography worlds -- I do not necessarily think one is 'better' than the other. They both have strengths and weaknesses.

Here's my observation.

While browsing various classifieds, I have seen a regular flow of M8's on the market. It is common nowadays to see used M8 bodies for sale on various internet sites. Many seem to have only a few thousand shutter actuations.

Now here's the mental exercise.

Let's say an M8 user (let's call him Mr. Leitz) has put on 4000 actuations, signifying relatively light use. If the M8 body (in 2007) originally cost about $5000 USD, let's assume Mr. Leitz sells the camera in 2011 for $2300. This means he paid $2700 to use the camera for 4 years (rough math, I know -- I'm not allowing for inflation-adjusted dollars and other costs, but I'm not an accountant and this is just a mental exercise.)

A rough calculation shows that each shot with the digital M8 cost Mr. Leitz about $0.67 over 4 years. That's not including the capital necessary to have a suitable computer + monitor, a software suite, a fast memory card, etc. -- but I'm assuming he already has these things.

In an alternate universe (Mr. Leitz might wear a fu-manchu mustache) he instead purchases a very mint M6 TTL for $1200 in 2007. He shoots 4000 frames, which would work out to about 110 rolls of 36 film. If each film costs $7.00 plus $5.00 for scanning & developing, then he paid $1,320 over 4 years to use the camera. Although it's possible to get film + scanning done for less than $12, I'm trying to not be 'cheap' on this figure. In my area, that's what it costs at the local photo lab. In other jurisdictions, this figure might be higher or lower.

Of course, if Mr. Leitz was particularly enthusiastic, he could develop his own B&W or colour film at home and his costs would be somewhat less. Again, I am not allowing for opportunity costs -- using one's time to develop film can be considered 'expensive'. Nor am I allowing for the investment into a decent scanner.

At the end of 4 years, the alternate universe Mr. Leitz sells his M6 for the same that he paid for it in 2007. His only net costs are the film and processing. Theoretically, he's ahead of the game, compared to the other Mr. Leitz and his digital M8.

Again, this is just a friendly mental exercise -- no offense to anyone (digital or analog users) ... I just thought this might be of interest. I only mention it because there is a general assumption made that film 'costs more'. Steve Huff made remarks about that on his website -- basically dismissing film because of the costs over time. My rough calculations show that a light user or hobbyist might actually be ahead of the game with a film M body.

[eia41]

I reserve my (propable) comment for later, but I cannot wait to read the amount of response this thread will undoubtedly create!

[Spleenrippa]

Awesome. Let the games begin

[archeophoto]

OP: your comparison does not work. You are comparing a NEW M8 (bought for $5000, sold for $2300) with a USED M6. This M6 was about $5000 (everything calculated in) when it was new as well.

[Roger Hicks]

Change the numbers, and you change the outcome. If you shoot several thousand pics each year, as I do, then even the M8 comes out ahead, never mind M9. The quality is better, too: commercial scanning is mostly pretty poor.

Besides which, what are you pricing here? Pro photography and time, where digital wins easily, or enjoyment? 'Cos if you are pricing enjoyment, I still use film as well.

Cheers,

R.

[buzzardkid]

OP: your comparison is correct since it is homing in on the cost to mr. Leitz, not users before him.

I'm from 1971 myself and own two 1955 M3s, now how should I take the price of these cameras when new into account?

Now, I could point out that my process is even cheaper than Mr. Leitz's because I buy film in bulk and home develop. But, any argument like that would only be of interest if I ever planned to sell my M's. Which I'm not going to do.

[ampguy]

Hmm, 1000 shots a year? Perhaps one should rent??

Stefan Daniels, the digital M Leica product manager states that the life of a digital camera is about 3 years, so someone buying an M8 or M9 is probably going to lose less than the 4 years depreciation, plus, let's face it, a lot of folks here collect Leica gear and use sparsely ...

[Ken Shipman]

In your scenario the M8 was purchased new while the M6 was purchased used. If a hypothetical used M8 was available in 2007 for say about $3,500 then the 4-year costs in your example would be closer to even. If the price of film and processing slowly rose over the years, it could tilt the other way. If you stretch the example out to say 8 years, how do the numbers move? Unfortunately a scenario could probably be constructed to support any argument a person wants.

[Roger Hicks]

In your scenario the M8 was purchased new while the M6 was purchased used. If a hypothetical used M8 was available in 2007 for say about $3,500 then the 4-year costs in your example would be closer to even. If the price of film and processing slowly rose over the years, it could tilt the other way. If you stretch the example out to say 8 years, how do the numbers move? Unfortunately a scenario could probably be constructed to support any argument a person wants.
Dear Ken,

What's unfortunate about it? As long as it encourages people to think...

Cheers,

R.

[tlitody]

In the real world Mr Leitz wouldn't be such a cheapskate and do the nerdy thing of bothering to make such a calculation. He would make subjective choices based purely on "I want" rather than "which is cheapest". There is no such thing as rationalisation when it comes to buying cameras. You might think you are being rational but you are prejudiced and will buy what you want just because you want it.

[Ken Shipman]

Hehe...I suppose it's not unfortunate from that perspective. The conundrum is people looking for a truth, but who find any number of arguments in all directions.

[dogberryjr]

I was told there would be no math.

[Snacks]

In the real world Mr Leitz wouldn't be such a cheapskate and do the nerdy thing of bothering to make such a calculation. He would make subjective choices based purely on "I want" rather than "which is cheapest". There is no such thing as rationalisation when it comes to buying cameras. You might think you are being rational but you are prejudiced and will buy what you want just because you want it.

On the other hand, maybe Mr Leitz forsees future expenses/changes in salary or retirement and wants to watch the pennies. People argue that if you have the money to spend on a Leica then you have enough money to buy everything you want. I doubt that this is universally true.

[umcelinho]

Mr. Emsicks bought an M6 in 2009 for $1000. shot 5000 frames with it until 2011. each roll cost him $5 bucks with an additional $8 to develop and scan. He was clever on how to load the film, so he got 40 frames on each roll. By 2011 he paid $1625 to use the camera. In 2011 he sold the M6 for $1300, because prices have gone up. So in total he spent $1325 to shoot 5000 frames.

Dr. Emeyth bought an M8 for $2300 in 2009. shot 5000 frames with it. did not spend a penny to get his shots. In 2011 he was fed up with the whole UV/IR filter thing and decided to sell the M8 for $2000. in total he spent $300 to shoot 5000 frames.

there you go :)

[tlitody]

On the other hand, maybe Mr Leitz forsees future expenses/changes in salary or retirement and wants to watch the pennies. People argue that if you have the money to spend on a Leica then you have enough money to buy everything you want. I doubt that this is universally true.
And his prejudice is making him look at a Leica when something far cheaper would do the job:D

[dave lackey]

Ha...you get what you pay for. Maybe less, maybe more for either digital or film. It is the process and the resulting image from said process that you pay for even it is more expensive with film.

In my perfect world, I would never have a computer to work on and I would access RFF and email, etc. on a handheld whatever. No need for photoshop, spreadsheets, etc., that's what employees are supposed to do. I would spend my time shooting.:D

But, alas, my world is imperfect and the processing cost for film is expensive. But I made the decision to do this latest documentary with TriX and Delta 100 because they were totally different images than anything I could convert from my perfectly good color digital files.

These days, it pays to consider costs and it is a good exercise, but the final decision should be based on what you want to see when the day is done, and that really should not be based on which is cheaper IMO.:angel:

[dave lackey]

Mr. Emsicks bought an M6 in 2009 for $1000. shot 5000 frames with it until 2011. each roll cost him $5 bucks with an additional $8 to develop and scan. He was clever on how to load the film, so he got 40 frames on each roll. By 2011 he paid $1625 to use the camera. In 2011 he sold the M6 for $1300, because prices have gone up. So in total he spent $1325 to shoot 5000 frames.

Dr. Emeyth bought an M8 for $2300 in 2009. shot 5000 frames with it. did not spend a penny to get his shots. In 2011 he was fed up with the whole UV/IR filter thing and decided to sell the M8 for $2000. in total he spent $300 to shoot 5000 frames.

there you go :)

Ummm...his time spent processing digital files must be included. And archiving. And backup drives. And blah, blah, blah... it really doesn't matter much.:p

[dave lackey]

I was told there would be no math.

Well, there will be a test at the end of this thread. You have been warned!

[Nikon Bob]

The OP's scenario does not work as a one size fits all cure. Change any one of a number of preconditions, new M6 for a used one, and the outcome is different. You are never going to prove or disprove one or the other is cheaper for everyone. Why even worry about it and just enjoy which you want. If a certain Leica product manager has been quoted correctly digital shooters will get to reassess their situation every three years anyway.

Bob

[sc_rufctr]

OK... All good but one thing not factored in is the storage costs of digital photos.

The reality is if you want to store your digital images with the same level of certainty as film you really need to factor this in.

You need an external hard drive and a backup system. Then you need to think about what may happen and how technology will change in the future.
Like DVD/CD/Blueray drives. It won't be long before these are no longer available as standard on new PCs and LTs.
Replaced by external media like thumb drives and memory cards.

External/internal hard drives do fail regularly. One little mechanical or electrical problem and everything is gone forever.
You can pay someone to recover data from a failed hard drive but this gets really expensive very quickly.

About 10 years ago I got a quote for a client to recover data from a failed laptop hard drive.
Total cost + shipping etc... $5,400 (ten years ago!)

-----------------------------------------------------------

You may think it's a good idea to go digital but I wonder how many digital photographs have already been lost forever.

I can still show you 100s of photos and film shot in the 70s by my mother on her Konica Range finder. Most B&W and still perfect.
I wonder how many descendants of today's digital users in the future will be able to say the same thing???

[sepiareverb]

I'm really in the soup. I shoot film & digital.

[Nikon Bob]

I'm really in the soup. I shoot film & digital.

Naw, good plan, belt and suspenders, you never know.

Bob

[selloutboy]

As long as you enjoy what you are doing, the prices would never matter.

If you are a working Professional, that's where you really have to crunch the numbers.

[bobby_novatron]

Gosh, I didn't expect such a vociferous and spirited response to my idle Sunday afternoon musings!

As I scrolled down the list of messages, I almost feared that I could see the ominous dark glow of a flame war on the horizon ... but thankfully this thread has merely been the soapbox of a spirited discourse.

I should have put many caveats in my original post. Yes, you can massage the numbers in any which direction and an alternate outcome is realized. Kind of like those 'choose your own ending' books they had when I was a kid.

"Hmm ... I think I'll shoot a Leica M-body!" TURN TO PAGE 72.
"Golly, I think I'll shoot digital!" TURN TO PAGE 151.
"Oh no! The dragon of planned obsolescence has depreciated my digital camera!" etc. etc.

Alternatively...

"Hmm...I think I'll shoot a Leica M-body!" TURN TO PAGE 72.
"Wow, I really like film! I think I'll get an M6 classic!" TURN TO PAGE 84.
"Uh oh! The evil Queen of Dust-n-Dirt has forced me to get a CLA!" TURN TO PAGE 104.
"My camera has returned from the CLA, but that was a little pricey! Wait -- what's this? Nobody in my area will process E-6 chromes anymore, and C-41 labs are closing all around me!" etc. etc. etc.

Anyway, I think several people hit the proverbial nail on the head when they mentioned it has more to do with what you love and enjoy doing.

There is no right or wrong here ... I'm sure it would be possible to draw up an Excel spreadsheet of costs of ownership for these cameras, but why bother? We're all here because we love photography. On top of that, I've recently polished off a beer and my grasp of Excel is probably at an all-time low.

[Jamesruff]

OK... All good but one thing not factored in is the storage costs of digital photos.

The reality is if you want to store your digital images with the same level of certainty as film you really need to factor this in.

You need an external hard drive and a backup system. Then you need to think about what may happen and how technology will change in the future.
Like DVD/CD/Blueray drives. It won't be long before these are no longer available as standard on new PCs and LTs.
Replaced by external media like thumb drives and memory cards.

External/internal hard drives do fail regularly. One little mechanical or electrical problem and everything is gone forever.
You can pay someone to recover data from a failed hard drive but this gets really expensive very quickly.

About 10 years ago I got a quote for a client to recover data from a failed laptop hard drive.
Total cost + shipping etc... $5,400 (ten years ago!)

-----------------------------------------------------------

You may think it's a good idea to go digital but I wonder how many digital photographs have already been lost forever.

I can still show you 100s of photos and film shot in the 70s by my mother on her Konica Range finder. Most B&W and still perfect.
I wonder how many descendants of today's digital users in the future will be able to say the same thing???
for every argument against digital, you can almost have the same against film..
you have to store negatives and prints, which go in folders which cost money, then they take up a lot of physical space.
hard drives cost very little for large amounts of storage. you can also get digital prints too..
but what if you shoot film, you need to scan negs to computer, so you have to factor costs of a scanner.

im wanting to get myself a Leica M, iv been looking at a M6 for a while, but with the cost of a M6 body averaging around AU$1500, im starting to think that the extra cost of a M8 might be worth while. i dont really have time or space to self process film and the closest lab is about a 2 hr drive away.
i like film, but i like the convenience of digital more.
each to his own though :cool:

[sc_rufctr]

James

I think you hit it on the head when you said...

"i like film, but i like the convenience of digital more.
each to his own though :cool:"

[dave lackey]

Bobby,

There is one scenario that many people, especially the younger of us, forget. Buying the right tool for the job (M3, M4, M6, MP) can be the only time that you will ever have to buy another camera. These cameras will outlive all of us, so constantly updating and buying a new digital camera ever 3 years or so is not even a factor. Let alone the constant computer, software and archiving upgrades. Those are significant costs!:)

I am using a 50 year old M3 with a lens made back in 1953. It is one of those "for life" cameras. As much as I would like to have an M9, the numbers justifying it are not there. I doubt that I would keep an M9 for life even if the support for it is still there in 10 years, 20 years or longer.

An M8/8.2 would be nice. An M9 would be nicer. But I can't spring for that kind of money up front and I surely can't justify either over the next 20+ years.

Yeah, film is dead or will disappear. Heard it before, that is why I have a plan for "Film for Life".:p

[tlitody]

Film Is Cheap !!!

[Nikon Bob]

Film is "dead" in the sense that it is no longer a mainstream consumer item but it does not mean there is no film. Nor does it mean it will disappear totally. If you plan on the prolonged use of film I think it is a prudent idea to have a plan for "Film for Life".

Bob

[Stuart John]

Thing with digital camera is that you don't have to buy a new one every three years if the one you have does what you need it to do. There is no reason why if an M9 is still working in 20 years that you could not use it to take great photos. Now whether these digital wonders will still working in twenty years is anyones guess. My old olympus C220 is still working as is my D1h. Although they are not twenty years old they still working and if the output from them is good enough for ones needs then why not use them.

[Archiver]

I've mentioned this numerous times in other threads. Last year I went to Japan for three weeks and took 350 photos per day with my M9, giving me a complete day by day documentation of the trip.

That's close to 10 rolls of film per day. Call it nine. 9 x $7 = $63 of film per day. 9 x $20 (dev and scan costs in Australia) = $180. $63 + $180 = $243 to shoot nine rolls of film.

$243 x 21 days = $5103. $5103 to shoot nine rolls of film per day for three weeks, 7350 or thereabout exposures.

I spent about $9200 for my M9 a few months after it came out in Australia. If it would cost me $5103 to shoot 7350 exposures, if I shoot 10,000 exposures with the M9 the equivalent film photo cost is leveled out. I easily shot that number of exposures in the first six months with the M9.

Another way to look at it is like this:

$9200 bought me the M9 last year. For that money I could have bought a mint M7 at $3100 and $6100 worth of colour neg film plus dev and scan at the local shop.

If it costs about $27 per roll to buy, dev and scan, $6100 gives me 226 rolls of film. Assuming that film and dev costs stay the same, I could shoot one roll per week for 4.3 years.

If I buy a M9, I can shoot tens of thousands of images in that same period of time, and not have to bother with the physical issues of film.

Leave out depreciation. Leave out selling your gear. Think about what it costs to shoot, dev and scan x number of exposures in your favourite film, and work out how much of that is covered by a digital purchase.

[dave lackey]

My M3 is 50 years old. Bet ya a thousand dollars in 50 years, that an M9 will not be usable. Or desirable. :p

Good luck on collecting if I am wrong.:D

[Roger Hicks]

Thing with digital camera is that you don't have to buy a new one every three years if the one you have does what you need it to do. There is no reason why if an M9 is still working in 20 years that you could not use it to take great photos. Now whether these digital wonders will still working in twenty years is anyones guess. My old olympus C220 is still working as is my D1h. Although they are not twenty years old they still working and if the output from them is good enough for ones needs then why not use them.

You are absolutely right, but there are plenty who are incapable of thinking rationally.

Cheers,

R.

[Roger Hicks]

I've mentioned this numerous times in other threads. Last year I went to Japan for three weeks and took 350 photos per day with my M9, giving me a complete day by day documentation of the trip.

That's close to 10 rolls of film per day. Call it nine. 9 x $7 = $63 of film per day. 9 x $20 (dev and scan costs in Australia) = $180. $63 + $180 = $243 to shoot nine rolls of film.

$243 x 21 days = $5103. $5103 to shoot nine rolls of film per day for three weeks, 7350 or thereabout exposures.

I spent about $9200 for my M9 a few months after it came out in Australia. If it would cost me $5103 to shoot 7350 exposures, if I shoot 10,000 exposures with the M9 the equivalent film photo cost is leveled out. I easily shot that number of exposures in the first six months with the M9.

Another way to look at it is like this:

$9200 bought me the M9 last year. For that money I could have bought a mint M7 at $3100 and $6100 worth of colour neg film plus dev and scan at the local shop.

If it costs about $27 per roll to buy, dev and scan, $6100 gives me 226 rolls of film. Assuming that film and dev costs stay the same, I could shoot one roll per week for 4.3 years.

If I buy a M9, I can shoot tens of thousands of images in that same period of time, and not have to bother with the physical issues of film.

Leave out depreciation. Leave out selling your gear. Think about what it costs to shoot, dev and scan x number of exposures in your favourite film, and work out how much of that is covered by a digital purchase.

All true, but would you shoot 10 rolls of film a day? And when do you have time to look at 7350 pics? After a two or three week trip I find even a few hundred pictures time consuming to process and select.

Cheers,

R.

[dave lackey]

You are absolutely right, but there are plenty who are incapable of thinking rationally.

Cheers,

R.


At least I am thinking, right? The lack of actual thinking about the future is not rational.:p

Don't get me wrong, I would love to have an M9. But this computer I am working on will be in the landfill is less than 5 years. Why would I expect a new M9 to still be working and/or desirable in the year 2061?

[shadowfox]

Dave,
Unless you're envisioning to turn into a crack-wedding photographer who does 52 weddings a year, or a sport-sideline hugger jostling with other pros on the field, I'd say skip digital RFs.

A film M-body and a compact mirrorless digital like the Olympus Pen E-P2 should be enough to cover any people-interacting projects (I'm assuming this based on our correspondence regarding small towns).

[Roger Hicks]

At least I am thinking, right? The lack of actual thinking about the future is not rational.:p

Don't get me wrong, I would love to have an M9. But this computer I am working on will be in the landfill is less than 5 years. Why would I expect a new M9 to still be working and/or desirable in the year 2061?

Not 2061, probably, by why not 2021 or even 2031?

Stuart John's point, and mine, is that as long as something goes on doing what you want, only a fool would stop using it because it is 'outdated'.

Of course, 'what you want' can vary. If you just want to take pictures (as you and I do), it's a bit different from wanting to be seen as the possessor of the latest toy. But sticking with 2-d photography, and given that an M9 is just about OK at A3, it's hard to see how you could tell a 500-megapixel camera from an 18-megapixel at A4, let alone on screen.

Besides, I'd be 111 in 2061, so I'm not so fussed about many things lasting that long.

Cheers,

R.

[dave lackey]

Not 2061, probably, by why not 2021 or even 2031?

Stuart John's point, and mine, is that as long as something goes on doing what you want, only a fool would stop using it because it is 'outdated'.

Of course, 'what you want' can vary. If you just want to take pictures (as you and I do), it's a bit different from wanting to be seen as the possessor of the latest toy. But sticking with 2-d photography, and given that an M9 is just about OK at A3, it's hard to see how you could tell a 500-megapixel camera from an 18-megapixel at A4, let alone on screen.

Besides, I'd be 111 in 2061, so I'm not so fussed about many things lasting that long.

Cheers,

R.

Me either, since we are both the same age.:D

[dave lackey]

Dave,
Unless you're envisioning to turn into a crack-wedding photographer who does 52 weddings a year, or a sport-sideline hugger jostling with other pros on the field, I'd say skip digital RFs.

A film M-body and a compact mirrorless digital like the Olympus Pen E-P2 should be enough to cover any people-interacting projects (I'm assuming this based on our correspondence regarding small towns).

Done the latter, done with it now. Started the former. But, Riccis is doing a magnificent job with his two MP's! :cool:

Selling my last DSLR this week, so the decision to stick with M-body film cameras is made.:D

[archeophoto]

No I'm sorry he is not correct. If he wants to do the comparison as he intended he has to compare a used M8 with a used M6. Then the whole calculation changes dramatically.
It's very difficult to compare used gear with new gear and make a cost comparison.


OP: your comparison is correct since it is homing in on the cost to mr. Leitz, not users before him.

I'm from 1971 myself and own two 1955 M3s, now how should I take the price of these cameras when new into account?

Now, I could point out that my process is even cheaper than Mr. Leitz's because I buy film in bulk and home develop. But, any argument like that would only be of interest if I ever planned to sell my M's. Which I'm not going to do.

[Archiver]

All true, but would you shoot 10 rolls of film a day? And when do you have time to look at 7350 pics? After a two or three week trip I find even a few hundred pictures time consuming to process and select.


You're right, I most likely wouldn't shoot 10 rolls of film a day. More like two if I pushed myself.

As for the digital work, when I got home I just ran the dng files through Lightroom and 7350 (mostly) autocorrected jpegs popped out. I then had the option of going through them at my leisure to select the ones I wanted to process individually.

While I might not 'need' hundreds of photos every day, I like having that option. Actually, I took about 650 images each day as I was also using a Ricoh GRD III. I really like having that almost minute by minute documentation, as does my friend with whom I traveled. And even though I was almost constantly taking photos, I was amply enjoying the trip as well.

[bobby_novatron]

Archiver -- I read your posts with interest and fully support your use of your M9 during your travels. I know how intense traveling can be, and how there is a desire to shoot lots of frames in the event of getting some 'keepers'. I did the same when I went to S. E. Asia for a 3 month visit in 2009 ... I think I ended up taking close to 12,000 frames.

And did I take my Leica M6? Nope. I took a Canon dSLR. Why? For the very same reasons you took your M9.

But in normal day-to-day, week-to-week shooting (I'm a hobbyist and shoot for pure pleasure) I only go through a few rolls a month. Some C-41, some B&W that I develop myself. I shoot film because I love the look of it, I love the personality of each film + developer. It's my indulgence, my passion away from the 'tyranny of the mundane' that otherwise permeates our everyday lives.

And heck -- takin' pictures is just plain fun!