Despite all the odds, the interest in film photography over the past ten years has burgeoned. What’s the point in film, people ask, when digital can do it all better. It’s cheaper, produces instant results and isn’t restricted to 36 exposures as with a full of 35mm film. Yet prices continue to rise, and some see this as a bubble. If it is a bubble, is it about to burst?
Digital photography reigns supreme, not just in the camera world but among smartphone owners. Yet as the memory of film fades among a new generation, there has been a resurgence of interest in doing it the old way. As a result, the values of used film cameras have risen to quite dizzying heights.
In his recent article at Fstoppers, James Madison asks if we are nearing the end of this film bubble. Strangely, however, he makes no mention of Leica, a company that has continued to produce film cameras in the traditional way throughout the digital revolution.
Leica has shown commitment to film and currently produces two traditional bodies, the metered MP and the M-A, which offers a modern incarnation of the unmetered designs of the M3 and M4 era.
There is even talk of another, cheaper, film body to attract those who baulk at paying over £4,000 for the current offerings. However, I’m unconvinced by this rumour because Leica cannot make enough film cameras at the moment. There really is no incentive to undercut a product that is in such demand.
Given the high-level intricate craftsmanship that goes into these film bodies, it is possible to argue that M-A and MP are actually keenly priced. They are cheaper than digital Ms when they almost certainly take longer to build.
Demand remains high
Dealers are finding it difficult to lay hands on new Leica film bodies, and this is helping to drive up used prices, not just of more recent cameras such as the MP and M6, but right back to the original M3.
Ivor Cooper at Red Dot Cameras in London tells me that demand has pushed the prices of used film Leicas to levels that would have seemed ridiculous just two or three years ago.
M3 bodies now range from £1,000 to £1,600, depending on condition, while a German-made M4 will go for between £1,700 and £2,000. However, the real star is the M6 Classic, which has soared from around £750 to over £2,000 in just a few years. The M6 TTL model will fetch up to £500 more than the Classic.
A used MP is currently fetching upwards of £3,500, almost irrespective of age, and within spitting distance of a new body at £4,100. As Ivor says, this is because new bodies are so hard to come by.
According to Ivor, rumours of a bursting film bubble—at least as far as Leica is concerned—is exaggerated. Demand for new and used Leica film cameras has never been greater.
What’s your view? Is the film bubble about to burst or will used camera prices continue to soar?
Our donations link is now back in action
Apologies to all readers who have tried to donate in the past four weeks and found the message “this site can’t accept donations”. PayPal changed the rules a didn’t tell us, so we had no idea anything was wrong. We have now sorted this out. If you wish to make a small donation, we will be genuinely grateful. We are a non-commercial site, funded personally by the editorial team. Any assistance is appreciated.
The other day I bought a Mamiya SLR. I needed something real, unsophisticated. I had to clean it and get a lens. A real brick. But after using it twice, perhaps not just another brick in the wall. Why that would have to finish: getting pretty joy and good photographs for a little money
George, I have had two dips back into the analogue world.The first was with a Hasselblad outfit a few years ago and was documented here on Macfilos at the time. I scratched that itch but found it too costly and just too much hassle and carrying that brick of a camera around was not fun so I sold it to a Mafilos reader.
However when offered a Mamiya medium format SLR and lenses in mint condition from a deceased estate last year I could not help myself. I have run just one film through it in 15 months. The results are fine and it is easier to carry than the’Blad-just. However I have again come to my senses and realised that for me analogue is just photographic masochism and with digital you can arrive at the same result with much less effort and much less cost. For sale one mint Mamiya MF SLR and lenses-only used once.
I sold my Hasselblad Xpan that sells as gold now (no remorse), my Leica M7 which I recover again. I bought a cheap Rolleiflex last year and use it often. The Mamiya was 14 €; pity I had to buy a screw lens because fungus blinded the original. I also made a panoramic pinhole camera, perhaps to fill the Xpan void. When you think photography is just light coming into a box through a hole, your mind becomes crystal clear again, and if you somehow practise masochism you forget about it: I’m not a Mamiya guy but I’d think about paying 100€ for that thing.
Discussion about results makes no sense. People loving vintage cars would realize it.
Most of my photography is made with B&W film, today with the M-A and a range of lenses. Yet I am currently considering either an M10M or Q2M as an alternative.
Why? Firstly there is the rising cost of film and developing. Running the developing and scanning myself, if I can use an M10M for four years it will have cost less than just running the film that I currently shoot. If I mainly shot 35mm colour slide film, then I would recover the cost of an M10-R in almost half that time.
Secondly, there is the effort that is required to develop, scan and process the images. It takes me 2 to 3 hours in total to process and scan a block of four films in a dedicated home darkroom. If the difference between that result and shooting digital is negligible, why am I wasting all that time? Sure, there is still something unique about shooting with the constraints of film and an all manual camera, but if I can replicate most of that with a digital M body then what am I loosing?
And then lastly, there is the problem of travel. Most of my shooting is with pushed film, but every time that I fly this creates a problem with airport staff who want to X-ray the film. So far, I have not had a problem getting a hand inspection – but flying is increasingly difficult and often involves considerable pain at the airport as staff are not familiar anymore with what film is.
Right now, the only thing stopping me from moving to an M10M to replace most of my film shooting is an acquired phobia for quality control pain when buying new items from Leica 🙁
Thousands of new cheap 35mm format film cameras are still being sold … check what’s on offer at e.g. Amazon, Lomography, and Boots … both reusable and disposable cameras costing from £8.52 upwards (complete with film). Kodak, Fujifilm, Agfa and Ilford list both colour and B&W disposable film camera models with built-in flash. Mass production of well corrected moulded ‘aspheric’ plastic lenses, both single and 2 element designs, has made such cameras possible. They’re “fixed focus” ‘slow’ c. f9 30mm focal length designs … but their excellent DOF coupled to ‘fast’ ISO 400 and 800 films with good latitude enables anyone to take reasonable photos. Some are underwater models and underwater housings are also available. You Tube has user reviews … worth watching. The cameras are ideal for beach use … and they’re fun. How long before someone manages to couple up a Leica / Leitz 35mm lens to such a camera … maybe an easy modification … just to prove it’s possible.
I used somebody’s – can’t remember whose – decent quality 80mm lens on an old curved Brownie 127 to get sharper photos. It’s the only time I’ve ever used or needed Pythagoras’ theorem since leaving school!
I measured the length of a film frame, then the height, added together the squares of those lengths, then found the square root of that number (with the pocket calculator in my phone) and the answer was 80. That was the diagonal of the film frame. so that’s the lens I fitted.
It gave all the ‘jolliness’ of using an old plastic (Bakelite?) camera from my childhood, along with a clear, sharp lens of ..we-ell, also of my childhood, but of rather better quality than the original plastic lens!
It’s interesting how the brand, place of manufacture and era of the camera plays such a large part in this. Obviously that’s how a market-driven economy works but, as an example, I bought a glorious Leicaflex circa 1966 from James for US$250. Couldn’t afford an M from that era… likewise I bought a lovely refurbished Rollei 35 from Film Furnish with made in Singapore stamped on it for half the price of the same model with Germany listed as point of manufacture. And the difference is? The market.
PS, I’m interested in the photo, not the investment 🙂
Yup.
There’s a similar kind of ‘snobbery’ about Leicas made in Germany and Canada. There’s no reason to think that the Canadian versions of, say, an M4, or the Canadian-made lenses, are in any way inferior to the identical German-made versions, but ‘collectors’, in particular – not necessarily ‘users’ of those lenses and cameras – prefer the ones marked ‘Made in Germany’ ..thinking that the Canadian ones are not quite up to snuff, or some such.
Note that current M cameras are marked ‘Made in Germany’ ..but they’re not: many or most Leica products have been made in what was a Portuguese watch factory since around 1974 (..because manufacture is cheaper there..) but the final assembly – putting in the last few screws – is done in Germany, just so that the equipment can be marked ‘Made in Germany’ instead of ‘Made in Portugal’.
(Cameras which were made for Leitz/Leica in Japan, by Minolta, for instance ..e.g; the film CL and some of the film reflex cameras like the R4.. are marked ‘Made in Japan’, but that’s hidden from view on the bottom of the camera, rather than being displayed prominently on the top!)
A great many Leica lenses were designed – brilliantly – and produced in Canada, but many ‘purists’ insist that only the ‘Made in Germany’ lenses are true and worthy Leica lenses! The same’s true of so many other lenses: “..can’t be any good, ‘cos they’re made in China.
(Remember when Japanese goods were thought to be inferior to British or German goods? ..like, er – look out; Michael’s reading this – Japanese motorbikes.)
Old Canadian Leica items, including lenses, often fetch a lot more at auction than their German equivalents, but that is collectors for you. US taxes on German made lenses led to more appearing with ‘Made in Portugal’ on them. The camera industry is truly globalised these days. ‘Made in Germany’ often just means ‘finalised in Germany. Leica makes no secret of this in respect of its own products.. Most people here seem happy to buy Apple products made in China. I could go on with more examples, but can there be anyone who does not know about all of this?
William
The rules around being able to say “Made in” vary from country to country. For Germany 83% of the final value of the product must emanate from that country. That’s one of the higher ones, for Spain I believe it’s 70% for example.
Thanks Steve. ‘Made’ is a word that can have many interpretations, particularly in the era of electronic components. ‘Assembled’ is a better word. Are Leica sensors (the most valuable part) made in Germany? The answer to this does not really concern me as ‘Made in Germany’ or, indeed, made in any country does not have the connotation it once had in today’s globalised manufacturing/market place for components and assembly. Certainly anyone under the age of 50 does not care at all and it is usually only older folk who talk about such things. It is a hangover from the 19th Century and the early to mid 20th Century.
William
I think anyone that has handled or used the made in Canada Leica lenses would quickly get past that concern. The Apo-Telyt-R 180mm F3.4 made in Canada is one of the nicest lenses I have encountered. Leica’s great lens designer of that era, Walter Mandler, was based in Canada.
It is true a significant portion of the Leica film camera manufacture is done in Portugal. I think the mechanical shutter still comes from a clockmaker in Germany. And I think a fair amount of the final steps in the rangefinder mechanism are done in Germany.
I remember a meeting at Kodak in Rochester not long after the digital tsunami,
We were told about the reasons film was still being made.
The movie industry. Good films were shot on film as it was too easy to pirate a digital copy before release and sell it to anyone.
Much harder to do with film originals.
I wonder if this is still the norm.
Cheers
Philip
Most film-makers – almost all! – use digital, but Q Tarantino, Chris Nolan and others squeezed Kodak so hard to keep producing ciné film that Kodak – or the rump of Kodak, or the Kodak pension fund which now runs the film manufacture – eventually agreed, as long as those film-makers guaranteed to buy sufficient film stock to make it worthwhile.
Otherwise, everything – in Hollywood and UK, anyway – is digital nowadays.
(Film pirating – that’s to say movies shot on film – is generally done either by people in the movie business, at the editing or colour-grading step, when the film’s been transferred to digital video, or by projectionists who set up a camera in the projection booth at a cinema to shoot the film from the screen (at rather lower quality).)
Proportionally, it is not what it used to be; but there are still a fair number of movies being recorded on film. Fairly consistent over the last few years.
It is not the same film; movie camera film is cellulose acetate and movie print film is polyester; but some of the studios still make film prints for archiving because no one knows how to reliably archive digital, but a century of film archiving knowledge and experience exists.
Bryan, (..I don’t know if there’s any point to my being pedantic about this, but there’s a bit of information in it, so here goes..) MOST print film was – and I write as an owner of a cinema, and so I had to deal with this daily – was acetate, so when caught or jammed, the film just tore or snapped. (Wikipedia says “it was only in the 1990s that it became overwhelmingly popular for motion picture prints..” but I dispute that it was “overwhelmingly popular for prints”. The overwhelming majority of prints which we showed – between 1997 and 2001 – were on acetate stock.)
In four years of projecting 35mm cinema films, we had only two – that I remember – printed on non-snap, non-tear, immensely strong polyester, one of which (“Starship Troopers”) got a ‘head wrap’ (caught in the mechanism of the play-out platter) and almost pulled over the ‘cake stand’ (platter system) and nearly pulled over the cast-iron projector plinth! ..Aaaaarrrggghh!
(Wikipedia mentions “..polyester-base films are so resistant to breakage that they are often more likely to break the film equipment should a jam, or extra tension, occur..” – which is rather an understatement!)
Polyester won’t snap ..it stretches (just a bit) but never makes a clean break; it’s slightly thinner than standard acetate was, and so projector gate tolerances sometimes need adjustment to cope with the thinner polyester film (Kodak called it ‘Estar’) than standard acetate.
I think every old-school projectionist hates Estar – when they occasionally come across it – and much prefers the more fragile, but standard-snap, acetate!
David, I don’t mind some pedantry. I agree on the advantages of acetate film. This is why it is still used for camera film. And some of the Kodak intermediate films are still acetate. But I think all of the Kodak print films are now polyester; maybe because fewer are being projected, and they want the supposed longer archiving capabilities of polyester.
True their expertise is in optics so in terms of creating a new film they would need to partner with another company with a history of film manufacture ( most likely either in Germany or Japan and mentioning no names), but that doesn’t mean they couldn’t do it and do it well if they had a mind to.
The pricing for film now is indeed painful and will remain so due to the lower sales volume. I’m lucky
since I’m living in Japan where I can still buy film from any photo store or convenience store and processing is no problem. It certainly isn’t cheap though.The T90 was an exciting camera at the time..I remember that one even though I was a Minolta user back in the day.
Not sure that I’d want Leica-branded film – their expertise lies elsewhere, so it would probably just be an existing make rebranded – and with a Leica price sticker, of course. But if the bubble is to remain unpopped, I hope film prices soon come back down to pre-Pandemic levels – a decent transparency film such as Provia is now around £18 a pop (plus processing) in the UK, rather than the six or seven quid it was before, while even happy snaps colour print film is now at least a fiver, if you can find any in stock.
My fingers were always too big for Olympus OMs back in the day, so I went Canon AE1 which eventually became a T90 – silly me, selling what was possibly the ultimate manual focus film SLR. At least, until I discovered the Leica R8 …
I’m glad you mentioned the Leica R8, Tony. I’ve just acquired a pair of black R8 bodies as I have been using a couple of Leicaflex cameras with dud meters for many years. Handheld meters, both reflective and incident. I now have the luxury of TTL with variations and Program too. 8 of my 11 lenses are either 3 cam or 3rd cam and I’ll still use the 2 cam ones on the old Leicaflex cameras.
I really like the R8. My initial reservations about it being complicated were soon dispelled. I read the instructions online beforehand and was all primed when the first one arrived. I don’t mind the weight at all and I don’t find it awkward to handle. I won’t bother with winder or motor, they weren’t available for the Leicaflex. I’ve splashed out for a pair of Artisan and Artists ACAM130 straps for them as the weight of them plus 35/2 & 90/2.8
Means they are not in the same league as an Olympus OM 10. Long May we be able to buy film, XP2 and Ektar 100.
Leica needs to make its own brand film, not just the cameras. That would better show “commitment to film”, support all the current M users and ensure a future market at the same time. Who wouldn’t want to use Leica film? This would be a more important move than just bringing out another film body. The brand is established, the market is there and it’s in the company’s own interest to do this. If they can continue to market new film cameras at a time when almost everyone is using digital and still make profit then they should be able to make a profit from film sales too.Of course the film containers must be black with red caps adorned with the Leica logo. Leitzcolor anyone?
I believe the rising prices will lead to new film cameras coming on to the market. The current Fuji digital camera that interests me (although I am not planning to buy it), is $4200.00 and the lens is $2000.00. An excellent film camera can compete with that.
Let’s hope so. I wouldn’t mind seeing Canon build the VL rangefinder camera in black paint again, along with their great range of rangefinder lenses, but I figure that is a long shot.
It sometimes seems odd to me that Canon and Nikon would have so quickly ended their rangefinder camera systems. I can understand the appeal of SLR camera systems for landscape, wildlife, and macro photography; but I would have thought that in the 1970s and beyond the rangefinder would have still been quite popular with many photographers, including as a family camera with robust build, small size, and the useful focal lengths of 35mm, 50mm, and 75mm/85mm/90mm for everyday use.
BUBBLE burst? No way — I receive two posts a day on film from 35mmc – and that’s only one site. I still have my OM10, and I especially love my Contax G1 and its brilliant Zeiss lenses – and if I want Leica, I take out my Minolta CLE and its 40/2, which does more and is lighter and smaller than the Leica M6TTL which I traded in for my first proper digital Leica, the X2. Which I still take out often like many of our friend in Macfilos. The only problem for film in NY is the post-pandemic closure of the film developing stores that used to line 22nd st. although there are still some small shops in Chelsea. I’m with David B. all the way!
There are those working on a film body beyond kick starter hooey. The parts, dies and tooling for many cameras still exists. Copal will make the mechanical Bessa R R2 OM2000 T60 FM10 etc etc shutter mechanical 1-1000 10,000 piece order. We are quickly working on it. Wouldn’t it be cool with an M Mount? Retail $500 w lens? US
PLACE DMZ, TET 1967, Catherine LeRoy war photographer, my buddies MED EVAC picked her up, was hit all kinds shrapnel, broke her jaw ripped open chest, her Leica M2’s and Nikon destroyed. Only thing saved her, so build quality on those cameras won the day. She was on patrol with Marines, and 6/7 weeks later she was back out in the field!
John, I have David Douglas Duncan’s Photo Nomad. What a book.
Interesting that this appeared today. I’ve just returned from a day out in London at the Victoria and Albert Museum. I took three cameras; my X1, a Minolta film camera and of course my iPhone. As I wandered around I considered my rationale for doing so. Film for images I want to keep for decades in a physical form. The X1 for ISO flexibility inside the museum and for photos I want to share in the next couple of weeks. The iPhone for photos of captions or for those I want to send today – as a newspaper photographer would be required to do nowadays. Photos of my children? Probably the same. I’m pleased to have the new technology and look forward to better photos from my smartphone. But, as I enjoy the photos taken two generations ago on a football tour to Belgium just after WW1, I hope to pass on physical negatives and prints to the future generations. And I use a fountain pen because it’s more useful when writing a journal and use both mechanical and quartz watches.
.
Which film did you use inside the museum, Kevin, and what is its ISO sensitivity, and could you hand-hold the Minolta, or did you have to rest it on something so as to use a slow ‘non-shaky’ shutter speed?
(I used to work in the Natural History Museum at weekends – fixing the electronic and computerised exhibits – and some areas used to be pretty dark ..especially the spider [arachnids] gallery!)
A Kodak B&W, ISO 100 film, although I cannot remember exactly (I’m experimenting). I hand-held the camera but only used it when I could work with speeds at or above 1/60, otherwise I used the X1. Horses for courses, the tool for the job etc. The lens was a 50mm MC Rokkkor-X used at 1.4 or perhaps 2.0. I’m looking forward to seeing how the pictures come out.
ISO 100..!? Nice and grain-free, but I’d have thought that’s awful ‘slow’ to be shooting indoors.
If you’re experimenting, have you tried Ilford B&W XP2 Super..? That’s, supposedly, ISO 400, and pretty much grain free (it uses colour dye technology, not just silver grains) with a huge latitude, so you can shoot it at 800 or 1600 and still get great, grain-free results! As it’s a C41 (colour) process, it can be developed at any Snappy Snaps – ‘cos it uses colour chemicals – instead of needing (what are now more rare in commercial developing labs) b&w chemicals ..but that also means that it’s more fiddly to develop at home than with the simple b&w dev / wash / fix routine.
But ..terrific b&w results, even in fairly low museum light!
Nowadays in truth I use very little film, just a few rolls each year, so have to accept the limitations of the ISO 100. Yesterday in the museum it was on the limit of hand-held usability even with the relatively high levels of natural light in the sculpture hall. Last year I bought an Olympus IS 3000 for £50, prompted by your article on cameras in May last year, and have found that it needs an ISO 400 film to serve the 35-180mm zoom. Thanks for the tip on the Ilford film, I’ll look out for it.
👍👍
I find the people who write the death of something articles do not know what they are talking about. i read the same article and noticed the absence if Leica and their hard to buy film cameras. He probably also forecast the death of M43 which is invaluable when you want depth of field for macro and compact telephoto and zoom glass.
There is so much misinformation on the web that I feel sorry for people that make buying decisions on this.
I remember reading a blog years ago that someone had asked a recommendation on whether to buy a Leica M 90/2 or Zeiss ZM 85 for portraits. The response was that the 85 has floating glass which optimizes the lens for close up but poorer performance at mid and longer ranges. So he recommended the Leica and the person responded that he then ordered Leica. I think both lenses would have been great options. For those that do not know, floating elements help maintain performance at closer distances.
I only read the film is dead article to see what the silly rationale was. I am not interested in going back to film but it does offer a wonderful photography experience if a person has the patience and passion for the benefits of the film. So film lovers do not fret over fake news – it is even on news.
And it also offers a good opportunity for readers to make sensible points. See knitting wind comment…
I agree fully. Various viewpoints are important to hear for an informed decision or fuller understanding.
Hi David,
Thanks for taking the time to follow up. I don’t disagree with any of what you wrote, although I may differ in degrees based on what matters to me. (The “to me” part is critical). 🙂
Nikons are great. Tough as nails. I have an F3 with motor drive that feels like a brick, but picking it up doesn’t give me the “feels” the way the Leicas do. To some, that doesn’t matter. To me, it matters a great deal.
Leicas don’t make me take better photos (although the lenses are pretty great), but they do help me enjoy the process. And since I don’t claim to be making capital-A “Art”, the process matters.
I’m not here to defend Leica or film photography. The internet is overflowing with people happy to waste their days doing that.
I just like to take photos with cameras I really enjoy. As you said, it makes me feel good.
.
Thanks, Jack.
Q.E.D.
HI Jack
I’m right with you on the “I just like to take photos with cameras I really enjoy” – I actually think it has a bearing on the results as well, and whilst there are many great film cameras . . Nikon FM2, Contax RTSII Nikon F100 spring to mind personally . . There isn’t anything quite like shooting with an M camera.
The linked article, if not quite ‘knitting wind’ is a ‘set up’ for a discussion, of course. There is a plentiful supply of older film cameras (I don’t have all of them, yet!) which is unlikely to disappear for many years. The lads at Camera Rescue are going from strength to strength and they have just opened an outlet in Paris and I am sure that other venues will follow.There is also a big demand to go on their camera technician courses and I know of people in the US who want to get on the course. The UK also badly needs such people as the supply of experienced camera technicians is dwindling all of the time because of age. Of course, you don’t need a Leica to shoot film, but the current situation is that Leica cannot keep up with the demand for film cameras, so a cheaper more easily assembled model might also make sense. Like a lot of camera collectors I have ‘many tens’ of film cameras, a lot of them Leicas. With film the main advantage of a Leica is the lens quality, but with LTMs and Ms the lens range is more restricted than with the R range which I don’t collect.
Some people shoot film because of the look and the tactile quality. This particularly applies to the young ‘digital natives’ who have grown up with digital everything and are looking for something outside of that. Such people often do 90% of their day to day photography on their phones and only use a ‘proper camera’ for special occasions or projects. There are many other possibilities, particularly with older people, like myself, who are coming back to film and who often use both film and digital cameras. There are some parallels with the music situation where younger people have taken up using LPs (which they call vinyl) rather than Streaming or CDs. I could go on with more points, but I feel that the ‘film bubble’ is not actually one and that the use of film will go on for a long time to come.
Finally, if you are exposing film make sure to put a good lens in front of it as the film won’t lie.
William
William, I have been knitting wind for at least 50 years and it’s done me ‘andsome most of the time. Now see what a cornucopia of erudite discussion has been stirred by this particular bit of wind-knitting. David’s sails have been filled to the point where the ship’s keel up and making a fair few knots, and we’ve found yet another expert commentator in the shape of Jack Baty. I’m encouraged to knit even more wind. Mike
Exactly what I meant, Mike, but I was talking about the Madison chap and not yourself. T’were him that raised the ‘South Sea Bubble’ concept. Discussion is always good. I’d rather hammer nails with a Nikon F than an M3 if hammering nails was what I wanted to do with a camera. That said, both of those classic cameras are lovely to use and rank among the best cameras ever made by either manufacturer. Put in a Rolleiflex and a Hasselblad and you would have film photography up to medium format pretty well covered, considering the lovely lenses that were available for those 4 cameras. If small is your thing look no further than a Rollei 35 or a Leica CL for something a bit larger with some interchangeable lenses. However, there are many other cameras available from Olympus, Yashica, Pentax, Canon, Minolta and a host of others. There are very few bad film cameras in my experience and the choice available is very wide if you want to rely on 2nd hand and CLA. You don’t need a new camera to shoot film, in fact you don’t even need a built in meter or even a rangefinder or any of that ‘modern stuff’.
Finally, as regards knitting wind, I enjoy it myself. In fact, I do it a lot of the time for the same reason as you do.
William
Yes, I understood you were referring to the original article. But I think I was as guilty of knitting wind by reproducing it in the hole that it would spark a lively discussion. And it has!
We’re on the same page, then. It would be a ‘no’ from me for Leitz/Leica film. The market of Leica film users will always be small relative to the rest of the market and the trusted names like Kodak, Fuji and Ilford, even a revived Agfa, would have a much wider appeal. I also suggest that anyone debating here should look at the Lomography website to see where the young folk are going. New films are introduced there like this year’s new flavours or Summer fashions. Not for the clientele here, but there is a wider market out there.
William
I am one of those that uses film for the “look and the tactile quality”, along with the enjoyment and discipline of the working process of using film.
I began photography using film. I happily tried digital when it came along, but after the novelty wore off, I was back to film. I have bought a couple of serious digital camera over the years, but fairly quickly end up selling them, as they just don’t satisfy like film cameras.
I still have an OM-1n and OM-2n. They’re great, especially with that Zuiko 85mm.
I was also fortunate enough to find and purchase a brand new Leica MP just last week. We all know that there are more convenient, feature-riddled, cheaper, and readily-available film cameras of all sorts. None compare to the M in the ways that are important to me: build quality, aesthetics, history, rangefinder handling, lenses, etc. etc. Also, it’s _brand new_, a feature the others don’t offer. Madness or not, I consider it my personal long bet on film photography and I couldn’t be happier.
How odd, Jack; “..None compare to the M in the ways that are important to me: build quality, aesthetics, history..” etcetera.
Build quality: are Nikons no good, then? Think of the hammering which several generations of Nikons have taken at the hands of (..as there used to be..) day-in-day-out newspaper photographers ..their build quality not too good?
And Canons, ditto?
Aesthetics? well, of course; that’s personal preference. I quite like the aesthetics of the old Kodak Bantam Specials, so I sometimes use one or the other of those. (And their film size is larger than 35mm, so their pictures usually suffer less from enlargement.)
History: ah; I just can’t understand what ‘history’ has to do with the quality of the photos one takes ..and does that apply to other equipment; TVs, for example? Does one buy a TV or a car based on the history of the manufacturer ..or a tripod, or a kitchen cooker ..or does a buying choice depend more on the quality of current manufacture?
I know that Rolls-Royce built – back in the days of early cars – extremely well made vehicles. But for someone buying a car today, does the history of Rolls-Royce have much of an impact on their choice? ..Or do they choose present day comfort, fuel economy, assorted electronic driving aids, and driving ease? And would choosing a Rolls make the journey – the number of miles covered and junctions crossed and direction driven – different?
I think it’s like watch sellers; they offer nebulous ‘pride of ownership’ of, say, a Patek Philippe or a Breguet, or a Panerai (..at £26,500!..) ..whereas a £9.99 petrol-station digital watch may keep better time than any of those. So one isn’t buying better time-keeping when buying an expensive watch, but buying some kind of amorphous “feelgood” sensation for oneself ..essentially saying “look! ..isn’t it great? I can afford this!”
As for the best cameras for film photography, and the future of film photography: it depends what one wants to shoot. Film can’t compete with digital in low light ..although, of course, one can use long film exposures for similar – but less convenient – results.
Film can’t compete on ease-of-use (..think of having to swap films every 36 shots, unless using 250 reporter back!)
But film may have the advantage at very low temperatures in bright light ..say for a trip to Antarctica, or up Kilimanjaro, where batteries may give a shorter useful life than usual.
But how many of us are going up Kilimanjaro or down to Antarctica? The future for film is perilous, and depends, essentially, on a few enthusiasts. Like the soon-to-diminis demand for petrol (gasoline). The advantages of film are very few, and the usefulness of film cameras is presently vastly diminished.
But Leica persists just like Rolls-Royce persists, and like mechanical, spring-driven watches persist; not because people want to take ‘better’ (in some undefined way) pictures, but because people want to feel good.
Clarification: The Kodak Bantam Specials (mentioned above) use 828 film, which is the same size as 35mm film, but doesn’t have the perforations down the edges; so the actual image area is larger than you get with normal 35mm film.
Gday David. Our lockdown over here has been extended into a fourth and fifth week. Quite minor so far, I know, compared with what you and others have had to endure over the past year or so, but now getting a feeling for how annoying and irritating it must have been. Given that……I just can’t help myself…….
“Bantam” – I remember the bantam, the BSA Bantam that is. Did Don Morley ever photograph a BSA Bantam at the limit? A slow shutter speed would have been just fine. Are they collectible yet?
“Watches” – I have a couple of nice Seiko, but joy of joy about a month ago and caught a clutch of five watches on the ‘Bay for Au$9.90 (that’s about a fiver in your Bank of England IOUs). Three classic Casio examples, and two Timex. Just plain fun to wear them, one at a time of course (“time” ….geddit?).
“Antarctica” – Trekmate Tony has been nudging me in that direction, but the insidious little virus has put a hold on that. But I can assure you that if it happens it won’t be with a film camera. Fred Hurley set that bar too high on the Shackleton expedition over a hundred years ago. No, wait, after reading William Fagan’s respect for film I might smuggle an old Zeiss Ikon in my duffel bag.
There, I’ve got that out of my system. Time to resume my foetal position on the couch until our lockdown is over. In the meantime…..just remember……
Contrarians rule OK. 🙃
Aaaarrrggghhh ! Frank Hurley, not Fred Hurley. Keyboarding on the iPad -/It wouldn’t have happened with a fountain pen 🙄
The real point or main benefit of any camera for me whether it be film or digitalis its versatility. Meaning how good will it be for everything between extreme sports, long lens use, landscapes, street photography, close ups, action, bad light, you name it as these are the sort of subjects we Pro Photographer are likely to encounter on any given day.
We can neither afford, or wish to carry a camera for this and another for that etc etc, and even though I have been a keen rangefinder Leica lover for about 70 years the one thing I could not claim of any film Leica, even including the SLR’s is they were anywhere near as versatile as any of the Japanese system cameras such as Olympus, Nikon and Canon.
Its a shame, and I would have loved to have been able to put all of my eggs in one basket, but apart from Leica lenses generally being too heavy and in comparison far too costly yet not significantly better (If at all) we working Pros were also further limited if using Leica cameras by such as poor motor drives, far too slow film loading, and very inferior long lenses where such as a 400mm lens like a Telyt with a f6.8 aperture was just laughable compared to such as a Canon or Nikon 400mmf2.8.
Frankly although I did also own and even liked several Leica SLRs up to and including the R8 I could never have used or regarded any of them either as being versatile, they were in short good amateur cameras which from the early 1970’s onward had been increasingly left behind in the development stakes, OK for landscapes, even close ups etc, but complete non starters for such as news or sports photography.
Sadly rather too many of us, and yes me included, sometimes fail to look on our cameras as being mere tools where it is the end product. I.E. Our resulting pictures which matter the most rather than what camera or even lens we used to take them with.
Jack, I agree with your sentiments on cameras. Having used or handled Canon, Nikon, and Leica SLR cameras and Nikon and Leica rangefinder cameras, there is nothing today like using a new Leica MP.
People like to talk about myriad features and capabilities, but if something like a Rolleiflex TLR camera or Leica rangefinder camera meet the needs of one’s photography, there is nothing else like handling these instruments.
Just as vinyl records need a record player, so film needs a film camera. The stock of second hand film cameras is now decades old, and the choice of new cameras is either Leica or disposable. I’d love a NEW version of what used to be called a ‘posh point and shoot’. A Ricoh GR would be ideal.
Thank you David B, I could not agree more both with your overview and your choice of Oympus OM2 as being a particulaly good example (Yes I still have mine and several OM Lenses, and yes I also use those lenses on such as my SL & CL Leica’s), and to the Olympus may I also add such as Canon’s wonderful A1 and T90 Cameras, indeed we could go on and on adding great Leica beating film cameras though for now I will resist the temptation.
.
B-b-but “..a new MP will set you back £4,100..”..? If anyone wants to use film – which I occasionally do, just for nostalgia’s sake – why pay £4,100?
You can buy a decent used 35mm film camera for, I’d guess, about £30. Here we are on eBay: “Vintage 1970s FUJICA ST705 Film Camera with Optomax M42 135mm f2.8 Lens: £42”. Here’s an “Olympus OM-2N Film Camera & 50mm f1.8 Lens, New Seals, Working Meter, Near Mint! £185”.
The OM-2 will do far more than a Leica MA or M-P or M6 ever could, because it has – takes deep breath – automatic shutter speeds as well as manually chosen speeds. So you can raise it to your eye, focus, click ..without wondering “have I got the right shutter speed for this aperture in these weather conditions with this film?”
The OM-2 takes lenses up to 1000mm (..or longer, if you want..) and as wide as 8mm (..or wider, if you want). The M series? Er, sorry; we stop at 135mm (..though I do have an M-fit Komura 200mm which works OK, but the rangefinder’s accurate focusing capability grinds to a halt at 135mm, according to Leica).
With the OM-2 ..and any other SLR.. what you see in the finder is what each individual lens sees: a 100mm view with a 100mm lens, a 21mm view with a 21mm lens. Alas poor Leica, I knew him, Horatio, a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy ..but not quite as much versatility as an OM-2.
Heres an “Olympus OM-1N 35mm SLR Body – Fabulous Condition – New Seals – Fully Working: £125”. And a “Yashica TL Electro X Vintage 35mm SLR Film Camera with flash unit: £20”.
The important two things about buying a film camera are (a) you want a shutter which doesn’t stick, so don’t buy a used Zenith SLR. And (b) you want good lenses ..and the small, crisp lenses made by Olympus are terrific! And an SLR is so versatile: portraits? ✔️ Birds in flight? ✔️ Landscapes? ✔️ Close ups? ✔️ Anything you want? ✔️
The limiting aspect of shooting with film is its – usually rather low – ISO sensitivity, so; handheld in museums? ..not so easy with film. Visiting glow-worm caves on holiday? ..not so easy with film. Mosques, cathedrals, theatres? ..not so easy with film.
But paying £4,100 when there’s a gorgeous wealth of super-capable cameras at super-daft low prices (Canon A-1, Nikon F, Oly OM, Pentax Spotmatic, Canon EOS (takes all Canon current lenses), superb Yashica/Contax cameras with Zeiss lenses ..look; here’s a “contax rts 35mm camera: £90”) ..that’s really off-the-scale madness ..in my own ‘umble opinion.