Thoughts on digital Ms....

[Nikon Bob]

Originally Posted by hendriphile

I think someone coined the term "digital rot" to describe this phenomenon?

Well, I don't think it is confined to digital cameras only. I think any post 1990s film camera with circuit boards and LCDs may be difficult to get repaired now too. Mechanical parts can generally be custom made in a pinch but circuit boards and the like not so much.

Bob

[Messsucherkamera]

Originally Posted by Phil_F_NM

Completely agree. I sympathize with you. I've owned both an M8 and M9. Over the last few years of using them, about 20% of that time has been spent at Leica NJ. Between both cameras, they have spent almost a combined year in repair.
The files they make are the finest available in miniature format, hands down. Regardless, the reliability of the M8 and M9 have led me to sell the M8 and I'm planning on selling the M9 within the 11 months left of my factory warranty. They both have driven me back to using my M4 and buying an M4-P. As for digital and deadline work, I'm going to get a D2x and some awesome Nikkors and be happy.

Phil Forrest

Reading posts like this and the original poster's story of woe really puts the brakes on my thoughts of buying an M9-P. I never cared for the M8/8.2 due to its miniature sensor. The M9 removed that objection but apparently it is not without its own inherent problems.

This makes me think that sticking with my film Leicas and shooting film is the way to go. Yes, film costs money - $3.99US for Kodak Tri-X 36 at B&H and about $0.40US per roll to develop my own Tri-X. some will find fault with film cameras on this point. As for me, I say so what??

I can buy and process a whole hell of alot of Tri-X for $8000US, plus sales tax or shipping and insurance, which is the cost of an M9-P.

Computers cost money; external hard drives for backup cost money; iPads cost money; software costs money; printers cost money; Color Munkis cost money; card readers cost money; memory cards cost money; inks and printing papers cost money. Digital is far from free once you buy the camera, which is a point many digital disciples conveniently overlook.

With all the tons of cash one has to invest to get set up to work digitally, I can't see an economic advantage to digital. The one place digital reigns supreme is in convenience and instant gratificatiion for the impatient - there's no denying that. But that instant gratification comes at a horridly high cost.

Professional photographers who shoot weddings and commercial jobs or who work in photojournalism may well have to bite the bullet and endure the economic bloodletting that digital requires to get set up - and to keep up with the latest advances in technology. That goes back the demands of the client or the boss for instant gratification - I get that. But still, the godawfully high price of admission to the digital realm remains.

I know that this post will cause some who work digitally to take great umbrage. All I'm saying is that for alot of applications, working with film and film cameras makes alot of sense - economically and otherwise.

Case in point: After 90 months of use, my MP needed some minor work. Sherry Krauter repaired it for $127 (plus shipping & insurance). My M4-P is still running strong after two years of use with no repairs needed (yet). Not a bad track record of reliability in my opinion, given that Phil's M8 and M9 have spent 20% of their life at Leica NJ in the repair shop (that has got to suck, Phil - I feel your pain). Film or digital, every camera is going to crap out at some point. It appears that for film M cameras, that point is a long time in coming compared to the digital M cameras.

I'm not here to "dog" anyone or their camera choice or the way they choose to create photographs, whether it's by film, digital or wet plate. I'm just saying that film Leicas seem to be alot more reliable than M8 and M9 cameras. Film Leicas are alot more economical to purchase and do not require thousands and thousands of dollars in computers and other electronic equipment to support their use. Film Leicas also seem to be readily repairable by numerous technicians; they also have a vast supply of parts that are readily available. Not so (apparently) with sensors and some other repair components for the M8/M9.

It all comes down to this: Digital offers one set of advantages and problems, film offers another. We pick whichever set we can best operate and live with. Some people demand instant gratification. Some demand to hell and back reliability. I choose the latter, not the former so I stick with film Leicas (and Nikons).

Just some food for thought. Your milage may vary.

[Mrbessar4a]

The idea that "no other camera comes close" to the output of your digital M, is just not accurate. I'm pretty sure a Pentax 645D more than surpases the quality of an M9. Same goes with the D3X or the 5D Mark II with the right optics. Hell even the X100 is better than the M8 within it's limitations.

*shrug*

I'm just saying don't box yourself into thinking you can't make quality pictures if your not using a Leica.

[LCT]

Originally Posted by Mrbessar4a

...even the X100 is better than the M8 within it's limitations...

Matter of tastes...

[Mrbessar4a]

Originally Posted by LCT

Matter of tastes...

Exactly my point. If you go around thinking that you can only make good pictures with one kind of camera you're ignoring what's out there. My taste perfers how Fuji renders color, and the 23mm EBC is outstanding. If you don't think so that's okay, but I'm sure if you were given an X100 as a gift you would manage to make it work for you. And I don't think that "nothing comes close" to it at all. I know lots of things do. If all the X100s in the world fell into hell, I'd find another camera and make it work for me.

[Mrbessar4a]

Originally Posted by Messsucherkamera

Reading posts like this and the original poster's story of woe really puts the brakes on my thoughts of buying an M9-P. I never cared for the M8/8.2 due to its miniature sensor. The M9 removed that objection but apparently it is not without its own inherent problems.

This makes me think that sticking with my film Leicas and shooting film is the way to go. Yes, film costs money - $3.99US for Kodak Tri-X 36 at B&H and about $0.40US per roll to develop my own Tri-X. some will find fault with film cameras on this point. As for me, I say so what??

I can buy and process a whole hell of alot of Tri-X for $8000US, plus sales tax or shipping and insurance, which is the cost of an M9-P.

Computers cost money; external hard drives for backup cost money; iPads cost money; software costs money; printers cost money; Color Munkis cost money; card readers cost money; memory cards cost money; inks and printing papers cost money. Digital is far from free once you buy the camera, which is a point many digital disciples conveniently overlook.

With all the tons of cash one has to invest to get set up to work digitally, I can't see an economic advantage to digital. The one place digital reigns supreme is in convenience and instant gratificatiion for the impatient - there's no denying that. But that instant gratification comes at a horridly high cost.

Professional photographers who shoot weddings and commercial jobs or who work in photojournalism may well have to bite the bullet and endure the economic bloodletting that digital requires to get set up - and to keep up with the latest advances in technology. That goes back the demands of the client or the boss for instant gratification - I get that. But still, the godawfully high price of admission to the digital realm remains.

I know that this post will cause some who work digitally to take great umbrage. All I'm saying is that for alot of applications, working with film and film cameras makes alot of sense - economically and otherwise.

Case in point: After 90 months of use, my MP needed some minor work. Sherry Krauter repaired it for $127 (plus shipping & insurance). My M4-P is still running strong after two years of use with no repairs needed (yet). Not a bad track record of reliability in my opinion, given that Phil's M8 and M9 have spent 20% of their life at Leica NJ in the repair shop (that has got to suck, Phil - I feel your pain). Film or digital, every camera is going to crap out at some point. It appears that for film M cameras, that point is a long time in coming compared to the digital M cameras.

I'm not here to "dog" anyone or their camera choice or the way they choose to create photographs, whether it's by film, digital or wet plate. I'm just saying that film Leicas seem to be alot more reliable than M8 and M9 cameras. Film Leicas are alot more economical to purchase and do not require thousands and thousands of dollars in computers and other electronic equipment to support their use. Film Leicas also seem to be readily repairable by numerous technicians; they also have a vast supply of parts that are readily available. Not so (apparently) with sensors and some other repair components for the M8/M9.

It all comes down to this: Digital offers one set of advantages and problems, film offers another. We pick whichever set we can best operate and live with. Some people demand instant gratification. Some demand to hell and back reliability. I choose the latter, not the former so I stick with film Leicas (and Nikons).

Just some food for thought. Your milage may vary.

Film is film and film is great, but if you want to share your pictures these days to a wider audience digital is the fastest and easiest way to go. If you wanna do those things you gotta buy everything you listed plus a scanner. There are trade offs. Luckily most people have computers anyways, and photography isn't that expensive when you're not buying Leica.

[dotur]

www.ivanlozica.com

I have sold my M8 after 2 years of stress and unreliability. Now I am happy shooting film with M3, M6, CL and IIIf RD.
As for digital, my M and L39 lenses work fine on Pana G1, though with known limitations.
Canon 5D is my digital flagship for fieldwork, Digilux 3 with D Summilux 25 is my beloved choice for pleasure, and there is always good old Panasonic LC1 as a reliable backup...
As for me, digital M is just another word for expensive trouble. True, the results may be nice, but there is definitely too much pain for the pleasure given.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Mrbessar4a

Exactly my point. If you go around thinking that you can only make good pictures with one kind of camera you're ignoring what's out there. My taste perfers how Fuji renders color, and the 23mm EBC is outstanding. If you don't think so that's okay, but I'm sure if you were given an X100 as a gift you would manage to make it work for you. And I don't think that "nothing comes close" to it at all. I know lots of things do. If all the X100s in the world fell into hell, I'd find another camera and make it work for me.

A half truth at best. I know very well what else is out there (bear in mind that I write for the photo press), and I know what it can deliver. I just prefer using Leicas, and I am utterly convinced that you get the best pictures with the cameras you prefer using.

Cheers,

R.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

...and I am utterly convinced that you get the best pictures with the cameras you prefer using.

Amen to that!

[LCT]

Originally Posted by Mrbessar4a

Exactly my point. If you go around thinking that you can only make good pictures with one kind of camera you're ignoring what's out there. My taste perfers how Fuji renders color, and the 23mm EBC is outstanding. If you don't think so that's okay, but I'm sure if you were given an X100 as a gift you would manage to make it work for you. And I don't think that "nothing comes close" to it at all. I know lots of things do. If all the X100s in the world fell into hell, I'd find another camera and make it work for me.

It's just that i compared raw files from both. There's just 2 or 3 parsecs difference but it's just me

[presspass]

I've had an M8 since they came out, bought to take the occasional color shot when I only had Leicas with me. So far, it's been fine. No lines, no lockups, nothing. I do use the profiles posted some years ago with Capture to get the color close and then tweak in PS. I don't use it every day, or even every week, but I've found it reliable. Maybe they're like VWs - when you get a good one, they go forever; when you get a bad one, it's one problem after another.

[kbg32]

Originally Posted by Mrbessar4a

The idea that "no other camera comes close" to the output of your digital M, is just not accurate. I'm pretty sure a Pentax 645D more than surpases the quality of an M9. Same goes with the D3X or the 5D Mark II with the right optics. Hell even the X100 is better than the M8 within it's limitations.

*shrug*

I'm just saying don't box yourself into thinking you can't make quality pictures if your not using a Leica.

For what I use, yes. Matter of taste. Medium format is not for me. Defeats the purpose of carrying around a compact system.

[kbg32]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

A half truth at best. I know very well what else is out there (bear in mind that I write for the photo press), and I know what it can deliver. I just prefer using Leicas, and I am utterly convinced that you get the best pictures with the cameras you prefer using.

Cheers,

R.

Cheers Roger!

[uhoh7]

OK my monthly hair brained scheme to find a used M9 is taken care of.

Thank you.

Now I just have to ignore the shots

Those DSLR FFs are too huge for me.

Someday we will see something "M9-like", reliable and not so expensive.

I am shooting some 645 and even 35 with my old contax IIIa, but it's impractical and expensive--for me---as anything but a historical excercise.

I admire those who make it work

[Mrbessar4a]

Originally Posted by kbg32

For what I use, yes. Matter of taste. Medium format is not for me. Defeats the purpose of carrying around a compact system.

Well a Pentax K-5 is just as small as an M9, very compact! And the, Limited lenses are MUCH smaller than Leica lenses, except maybe the Summarits that hardly anybody talks about. It's also quieter than an M4, and has all the dynamic range the M9 doesn't have, and all the high ISO the M9 SHOULD have, and the price that looks very good compared to Leica luxury. Anybody who likes Leica glass should like Pentax Limited glass. All metal gorgeous constructions, unique characteristics, perfect contrast and bokeh... There's an option!

I didn't mean that you should go out and buy a 645D, you just said that nothing comes close to Leica quality. That's just a myth I'm tired of hearing. Most camera systems come very close and in some cases surpass. People just LIKE using Leica's, as I do! But they're not better than anything else out there at anything other than BEING handmade rangefinders.

[Mrbessar4a]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

A half truth at best. I know very well what else is out there (bear in mind that I write for the photo press), and I know what it can deliver. I just prefer using Leicas, and I am utterly convinced that you get the best pictures with the cameras you prefer using.

Cheers,

R.

What's the half truth? We obviously agree... The best camera is the one you have on you! And you probably have on you the camera you prefer. it doesn't mean that "nothing comes close" to what the M8 and M9 can do, it just means you like them more. Doesn't mean you can't learn to like anything new. The day we refuse to learn anything new is the day we grow old!

[Lss]

Originally Posted by kbg32

I can't go on a trip and have nothing else with me as a backup, because I never know if in that moment of photographing, if I press the shutter, will the camera respond.

I choose not to worry about such things when I travel. It can happen with any camera, and it has happened with any camera. I can say that the M8 has been the most reliable digital camera I have owned and used. Well, a couple of point-and-shoots have been every bit as reliable, but they have seen less use. I am the first or second owner of all my other digital cameras, I am the third owner of my M.

[peter_n]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

I'd be curious to see how this rate was determined and how it was extrapolated out to cover all of the M9s in existense.

I don't think it was extrapolated. It was a survey thread of the type I have/have not experienced a defect in my M7 and the sample size was ultimately large enough to give statistical significance. As I recall the defect rate among members was about 1 in 4.

[dcsang]

Keith, I feel for you..

I have waffled so much over the past year on the M9 - Should I? Shouldn't I? - and this is even though I have seen the reviews, heard about the problems, and yet I still considered it a lot this year.

But now with Kodak selling the sensor business (and seeing that they sold it to an M&A&O firm) and all the other issues I know exist out there, I too can't bring myself to plunk down all that money on an M9 body. Even the "used" ones are expensive for me and I would have to seriously get rid of both my D700's and a couple lenses just to get ONE body - and I would always need two because of how/what I shoot.

I know that just because a certain number of folks have issues doesn't mean EVERY camera has issues but the fact that it's a luxury item now (or maybe Leica has always been a luxury item) it would really burn in my gut should something go wrong with the camera OR it would make me baby it so much that it would inhibit my ability to shoot effectively.

So, for now, I will sit and wait and see and continue to shoot film (as long as it's around) and scan my images. I can't afford the money or the aggravation that the M9 may cause to me.

Cheers,
Dave

[kbg32]

Originally Posted by Lss

I choose not to worry about such things when I travel. It can happen with any camera, and it has happened with any camera. I can say that the M8 has been the most reliable digital camera I have owned and used. Well, a couple of point-and-shoots have been every bit as reliable, but they have seen less use. I am the first or second owner of all my other digital cameras, I am the third owner of my M.

I need to have something reliable. Yes, any camera can crap out. In over 30 years of shooting and traveling, the only cameras to ever have crapped out on me have been the digital Ms. I use other systems. My preference is Leica. It is what I like and from my point of view, the files are superb. But that means nothing if the camera doesn't work.

BTW, I am a big fan of the MFT system. I get great files, the IQ is quite nice, but the files do not compare to the Leica's. I still use them and enjoy them anyway.

When I have a commercial job, I reach for my 5Dll. I know what it can do, and it delivers for my clients.

Thanks Dave. I hope Leica someday comes up with a reliable M!

[MCTuomey]

I guess the digital M's are more enthusiasts' cameras than professional tools. I say this because it seems that even the people who own them rely on other gear when the shots must be made.

[dcsang]

Originally Posted by MCTuomey

I guess the digital M's are more enthusiasts' cameras than professional tools. I say this because it seems that even the people who own them rely on other gear when the shots must be made.

Enthusiasts with deep pockets..

Cheers,
Dave

[Shade]

I wouldnt say that, although I may not be as professional as most of you guys, I rely on my m9 all the time. The only time I rely on other cameras would be when I need a long telephoto or when Im shooting kids jumping around..

[kbg32]

I use the correct tool, for me, that the job calls for. I shoot a lot of corporate, business, and some sports events. There are times when a rangefinder is perfect and I use that. Most times, I am stuck in one place or need to move around a lot for different vantage points. Making lots of lens changes would be quite difficult, cumbersome, and possibly losing the moment. I also need to be quite unobtrusive, being back a bit further. For most of this work, a SLR with a moderate zoom and flash works perfectly.

[dave lackey]

Deja vu all over again. Keith, it sucks that you have had bad luck. Hell, I have bad luck going to buy groceries, every line I get in is the longest, slowest line, always! But I still go.

Everytime someone posts a Leica problem thread, it goes to hell in a hand basket from Leica bashers.

This is the kind of crap that causes me to rethink even being on RFF. Not that your OP was a bad one, it's just that Leica bashers come out of the woodwork in droves.

Tell ya what, I quit.