M9 - love at first light

[Jarle Aasland]

I've written the following article about my love affair with the M9:

http://www.nikonweb.com/m9/

Enjoy! Comments and questions welcome.

Jarle

 

[.ken]

Thanks for the review.

That 800 ISO crop looked a bit smeary.

 

[gavinlg]

Great review, ISO 800 crop looked good considering how dark it would have been. I really appreciate the good photos you posted with it - It tells so much more than words do.

Thanks

 

[ethics_gradient]

I've written the following article about my love affair with the M9:

http://www.nikonweb.com/m9/

Enjoy! Comments and questions welcome.

Jarle

It seems a bit misleading to say "The cheapest one, a 50mm f/2.5 Summarit-M, costs $1295". Maybe it's the cheapest lens Leica sells brand new, but there are plenty of older lenses in both M and LTM mount that can be had for a lot less.

 

[ferider]

If I may:

There are three LED's in the viewfinder (two triangular and one circular) indicating the «correct» exposure, but there's no way knowing how far off you are. And why don't they use a plus and a minus sign (indicating over- and underexposure), instead of those meaningless arrows? Am I missing something?

Have a look at the attachment. This is for the M7 so I assume the M9 is identical.

 

[swoop]

If I may:



Have a look at the attachment. This is for the M7 so I assume the M9 is identical.

Correct. Those new to Leica's, as I suspect the majority of M9 buyers will be, will have no clue about a lot of subtle details.

 

[Ken Shipman]

The exposure arrows indicate in which direction to turn the aperture ring or shutter speed dial to reach "correct exposure". "Correct exposure" is of course a relative term.

 

[Jarle Aasland]

Thanks everyone!

.ken: Yes - you're right. The M9 is not a high ISO camera, IMO.

fdigital: thanks a lot, Gavin. Glad you enjoyed them.

ethics_gradient: My point was simply to illustrate that Leica lenses are much more expensive than Nikon lenses (which are also expensive, compared to many other brands, btw). But you're absolutely right - you can get used lenses for a lot less.

ferider: Thanks. I guess the Leica LED system is better than nothing, but it would have been very easy to improve, IMO.

Jarle

 

[Kent]

Wow! Now I am officially envious. 😉
Thanks for the report.

 

[morgan]

Thanks everyone!

ethics_gradient: My point was simply to illustrate that Leica lenses are much more expensive than Nikon lenses (which are also expensive, compared to many other brands, btw). But you're absolutely right - you can get used lenses for a lot less.

Jarle

Nice review. I'll still argue the above point though. You can get new Cosina Voigtlander m-mount lenses for a ton less than Leica lenses, and many of the currently produced lenses are amazing. The 35/1.2 is incredible, the 50/1.1 is ~$1100 compared with 5k for a new noctilux. The 35/2.5 is a drop dead sharp tiny little lens that is cheap and the superwide 12mm and 15mm are very affordable and delivery great shots. Zeiss also makes great lenses that sit somewhere between CV and Leica in terms of price. You don't need to afford new Leica glass to shoot an M9 (although I would somewhat assume that if you can afford an M9, you're probably likely able to afford Leica glass).

 

[bo_lorentzen]

Jarle,

Nice writeup, agree, the M9 seems easy to fall in love with, Im still waiting for mine though, the fact it does what my M6 do, with no face-recognition kind of settles it for me.

Morgan, I can probably afford leica lenses, but I still love my Zeiss 28 2.8 and the CV 50mm 1.1 the lenses are great and for me its not as much about the lenses as the way I work and see the world with a rangefinder, there is only one full-frame digital rangefinder, so that kind of is the end of that discussion for me. If Sony made one for 5500 it might be a open topic. 🙂

.