The craft of creating art is an important element of being an artist...and there is an upsurge in the use of film and many users cite that reason...particularly MF film users.
Personally...if I wanted to create stunning prints via a rangefinder I would go for a Mamiya MF RF and lens...an Epson V700.....and a r2880 or similar spec printer.
These and the film / processing costs would be a lot lot less than using a digital Leica...however the process and the end product would be very satisfying......
Surely there is no point in owning a high end camera unless producing high end prints
anthonygh wrote:
These and the film / processing costs would be a lot lot less than using a digital Leica...however the process and the end product would be very satisfying......
i'm not sure about this point. i go through film pretty fast and an m9 plus 35 lux would probably last me around 8 years. i think the m9+lux is cheaper at least for me.
sebboh wrote:
i'm not sure about this point. i go through film pretty fast and an m9 plus 35 lux would probably last me around 8 years. i think the m9+lux is cheaper at least for me.
Agreed. Even in Bangkok where the processing costs are just a fraction of what it costs you in the US, one slide film costs me in average about 15$, not including transportation to/from the lab. That would make it about 40 cents per frame.
I used to shoot about 10 rolls a month, and maybe around 25 rolls when I'm on vacation, about twice a year. Total about 150 rolls or 2250$. My M9 (cost me 5700$ new) would pay for itself in just 2.5 years
you guys should learn to scanvelop at home
I used to do B&W, c41, slides, the lot
then fuji made a couple of cameras that I liked as much as my film cameras and I just sold everything
otherwise home processing didnt bother me at all and combined with bulk film orders it cost next to nothing.
anthonygh wrote:
The craft of creating art is an important element of being an artist...and there is an upsurge in the use of film and many users cite that reason...particularly MF film users.
Personally...if I wanted to create stunning prints via a rangefinder I would go for a Mamiya MF RF and lens...an Epson V700.....and a r2880 or similar spec printer.
These and the film / processing costs would be a lot lot less than using a digital Leica...however the process and the end product would be very satisfying......
Surely there is no point in owning a high end camera unless producing high end prints
To be honest, I don't really find scanning film and any more satisfying than shooting digital in the first place. Making darkroom prints is another story, but I'm past the point of no return and enjoy printing with my Epson.
Spyro P. wrote:
you guys should learn to scanvelop at home
I used to do B&W, c41, slides, the lot
i hear that a lot, the problem is i really don't want to deal with developing at home and i REALLY DON'T WANT to deal with trying to get good scans at home. also, it would only cut the price in half (maybe). the m9+lux would still be cheaper over 5 years.
sebboh wrote:
i hear that a lot, the problem is i really don't want to deal with developing at home and i REALLY DON'T WANT TO deal with trying to get good scans at home. also, it would only cut the price in half (maybe). the m9+lux would still be cheaper over 5 years.
Yeah, my used M9 and 50 Summicron were only $5325 combined, which isn't all THAT bad, considering.
sebboh wrote:
i hear that a lot, the problem is i really don't want to deal with developing at home and i REALLY DON'T WANT to deal with trying to get good scans at home. also, it would only cut the price in half (maybe). the m9+lux would still be cheaper over 5 years. fair enough, about the scanning... I was churning them out in minutes but it did take me a while to find my scanners and standardise my settings.
But, I think the digital savings are a fallacy. Maybe you have the self control of a zen master to ignore all the new camera announcements and do with just your m9+lux for 5 years, but the majority of users will fall for it sooner or later and will fork out thousands every couple of years to "upgrade" their bodies. Whereas if you shoot an Ikon, an M3, a Mamiya 7, an OM4, an F6 etc, there are no upgrades or announcements. You already own the best there is, for ever
Spyro P. wrote:
But, I think the digital savings are a fallacy. Maybe you have the self control of a zen master to ignore all the new camera announcements, but the majority of users will fall for it sooner or later and will fork out thousands every couple of years to "upgrade" their bodies. Whereas if you shoot an Ikon, a Mamiya 7, an OM4 etc, there are no upgrades or announcements. You already own the best there is, for ever
I think that film savings are a fallacy.
Maybe you have the self control of zen master to ignore buying into other film bodies, formats, lenses, but the majority of film users will fall for something they don't already have and will fork out thousands. Whereas if you shoot 135 you'll one day convince yourself you need to shoot 6x6 or 6x7 or 6x9 or that your Rollei TLR needs a Mamiya 6 or 7 as a stable-mate for "shooting on the go" or that you really need that superduper two pound new lens for your little film box or that you want that new scanner or you couldn't pass up the deal on that 4x5 setup someone was selling or you grow tired of all the dust in your dark/scanroom so you renovate the basement of your 80 year old house or there's that other shiny thing on the horizon, yes, that... that.. that...
Ok, this might not have happened to you, but it surely happened to me!
michaelwatkins wrote:
I think that film savings are a fallacy.
Maybe you have the self control of zen master to ignore buying into other film bodies, formats, lenses, but the majority of film users will fall for something they don't already have and will fork out thousands. Whereas if you shoot 135 you'll one day convince yourself you need to shoot 6x6 or 6x7 or 6x9 or that your Rollei TLR needs a Mamiya 6 or 7 as a stable-mate for "shooting on the go" or that you really need that superduper two pound new lens for your little film box or that you want that new scanner or you couldn't pass up the deal on that 4x5 setup someone was selling or you grow tired of all the dust in your dark/scanroom so you renovate the basement of your 80 year old house or there's that other shiny thing on the horizon, yes, that... that.. that...
Ok, this might not have happened to you, but it surely happened to me! ...Show more →
hahahaha I love FM, my brothers live here
It absolutely happened to me, step by step! Well, minus the darkroom bit.
The difference being that when I sold off I actually broke even or even made a buck on some cameras I had bought cheaply. Granted I always shopped carefully and looked for bargains, but generally speaking used film cameras have near zero depreciation if you look after them. Try that with digital
michaelwatkins wrote:
I think that film savings are a fallacy.
Maybe you have the self control of zen master to ignore
buying into other film bodies, formats, lenses, but the muajority of film users will fall for something they don't already have and will fork out thousands. Whereas if you shoot 135 you'll one day convince yourself you need to shoot 6x6 or 6x7 or 6x9 or that your Rollei TLR needs a Mamiya 6 or 7 as a stable-mate for "shooting on the go" or that you really need that superduper two pound new lens for your little film box or that you want that new scanner or you couldn't pass up the deal on that 4x5 setup someone was selling or you grow tired of all the dust in your dark/scanroom so you renovate the basement of your 80 year old house or there's that other shiny thing on the horizon, yes, that... that.. that...
Ok, this might not have happened to you, but it surely happened to me! ...Show more →
Agreed. I started with a used M6 because I decided I couldn't afford an M9. Soon after I needed a 2nd body for b/w so I bought a new Ikon. Then I needed one more body for high iso, so I got another Ikon. Total investment with leather cases and hand grips= 5500$. Almost the price of an M9.
rattymouse wrote:
5 grand, for a 50mm lens and camera. Wow.
I 'hope it's an f/0.5 lens!
Just a 50mm f2. The thing is, the M9 is taking the place of both my X100 and Nex-7, so that is about half the money back right there. Either way, everyone spends stupid amounts of money on things they're interested in. The recent repairs on my car are certainly giving my M9 costs a run for their money.
Spyro P. wrote: fair enough, about the scanning... I was churning them out in minutes but it did take me a while to find my scanners and standardise my settings.
But, I think the digital savings are a fallacy. Maybe you have the self control of a zen master to ignore all the new camera announcements and do with just your m9+lux for 5 years, but the majority of users will fall for it sooner or later and will fork out thousands every couple of years to "upgrade" their bodies. Whereas if you shoot an Ikon, an M3, a Mamiya 7, an OM4, an F6 etc, there are no upgrades or announcements. You already own the best there is, for ever ...Show more →
i have this problem with lenses, but not camera bodies. i buy camera bodies used, usually from early adopters moving on to the next new thing. i'm not really interested in the latest greatest improvement in image quality, digital is already good enough for me in that respect. i do tend to wear out shutters though...
just to be clear though, i'm not going to get an m9+lux because i don't actually like shooting rangefinders that much and i love evfs. i'm hoping a FF mirrorless will come along that can hold up to my use for at least 5 years. maybe rx1 will be that camera, but i will have to handle one to decide.
michaelwatkins wrote:
I think that film savings are a fallacy.
Maybe you have the self control of zen master to ignore buying into other film bodies, formats, lenses, but the majority of film users will fall for something they don't already have and will fork out thousands. Whereas if you shoot 135 you'll one day convince yourself you need to shoot 6x6 or 6x7 or 6x9 or that your Rollei TLR needs a Mamiya 6 or 7 as a stable-mate for "shooting on the go" or that you really need that superduper two pound new lens for your little film box or that you want that new scanner or you couldn't pass up the deal on that 4x5 setup someone was selling or you grow tired of all the dust in your dark/scanroom so you renovate the basement of your 80 year old house or there's that other shiny thing on the horizon, yes, that... that.. that...
Ok, this might not have happened to you, but it surely happened to me! ...Show more →
douglasf13 wrote:
Just a 50mm f2. The thing is, the M9 is taking the place of both my X100 and Nex-7, so that is about half the money back right there. Either way, everyone spends stupid amounts of money on things they're interested in. The recent repairs on my car are certainly giving my M9 costs a run for their money.
fair enough, about the scanning... I was churning them out in minutes but it did take me a while to find my scanners and standardise my settings.
