Originally Posted by Mcary
I've also thought about getting back in to shooting film and have lost count of the number of times I've check the prices of M6, M4 and M4P on here and other sights but the question that keeps coming up for me is do I really shoot enough to warrant using both film and digital and the answer is always no. Realize some people might suggest shooting film for a month then going to digital for a few weeks while I wait for the film to comeback from development and scanning. Realize that works for lots of people but I just prefer sticking to one camera works best for and really don't feel like going back and forth so if I went with film, even for a short while say a year or so my M9 would just be sitting around and then what happens when I decide to go back to digital do I just let the film M sit around unused or sell it. Now maybe down the road when my M9 shoots its last frame I may decide that my next camera should be a film M.......
I would assume that this topic is perennial ... . In my case it's a matter of vision and workflow. If I'm planning a portfolio of film images, then I use the digital camera as a "sketch pad," knowing full-well that this only works if one has continuous access to the worksite. I use an M8.2 because it was the most affordable Leica digital body that I could find that supported my lenses (that I have owned and used since the late 1970's), processed with Capture One. Once I'm confident with the sketches, I put the film on the cameras (old M4Ps) and get the job done. And yes, this means development, scanning and post-processing (Affinity, etc), and finally rendering all files in whatever format the printer requires ... usually JPGs with sRGB or CMYK profiles, etc.
Now, if I'm interested in "digital" or in mixed media delivery, then the M8.2 is used more frequently than the film M's ... again, depending.
I realize that this workflow will not work for everyone, but it's just an observation based upon the last few years.