Is the M9 Worth the cost?

[jsrockit]

To me, the only reason to use film these days is because you like the film look and / or you are doing your own darkroom work. Outside of that, digital is just easier to deal with. You can still bring digital to the local lab and have them print them.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

My Nikon F series lenses all have aluminum helicoids vs brass in my Leica RF lenses, so the equivalent focal length/max. apertures are quite nearly the same.

All true. I tend to use a Zeiss Sonnar that I mounted in a Jupiter-3 focus mount, which is aluminum. I also use a number of Sonnar forumula lenses, some -like the Nikkor 5cm F1.4- are solid and heavy. On the Nikon, I tend to use a 55/1.2 or older 50mm F1.4. My 45/2.8 GN Nikkor is quite light. The retro-focus wide-angle lenses are much larger and heavier, comparing my F-Mount Nikkor-O 35/2 (factory AI Converted) with my Canon 35/2 in LTM.

 

[mathomas]

I own both the FM2 and the leica M7. As well as other's.
Im still trying to get my head around your reasoning, which in mind is flawed. First off the FM2 isnt bigger than a rangefinder.



If you use a Nikkor 50 1.8 AIS on the FM2 I hardly think it's to heavy to carry around. I hear this arguemt and a lot on this forum and frankly it's not true. A SLR like a FM2 with a 50 1.8 AIS is just about the same size as a rangefinder with a 50 2.0

... clip ...




Taken with Rollei twin lens on Tri-X




Nikkor 24 2.0 AIS on F2AS on Tri-X




Nikkor 135 2.0 AIS on F2AS Tri-X




Nikkor 135 2.0 AIS on F2AS on Tr-X




Nikkor 24 1.4 AFS on D3

Your comparison of film cameras is a good one. However, I believe he's asking about digital, though he's mixed in a lot of other stuff here. I know my M8 and any M lens I have is smaller than my Canon 30D and any Canon-mount lens I have. I can carry an M2 and an M8, each with a lens attached, and three additional lenses, film, light meter, filters, and other bits and bobs in a very compact Domke F-5XC. The whole thing weighs 8 lbs. I could never carry a Canon DSLR 2 body, 5 prime setup in that bag. The Canon setup would also weigh more than half again as much. Of course, the DSLR gear offers "more functionality", WRT AF, IS, etc.

Again, as you say, when it comes to film, there are plenty of small film SLRS (why did digital SLRs have to get so huge?), such as your FM2 and Olympus' models.

Your photos are fantastic!

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Yes.
If you're a student in the US and can get the 25% discount. 😀

Phil Forrest

 

[luuca]

does M9 worth the cost? NO!

do I love my M9? YES!

 

[jsrockit]

That FM2 looks quite beautiful (my first good camera in the 90s)... off to ebay I am. 🙂

 

[MCTuomey]

if i had the ready $$ i would buy an m9 in a heart beat...vanity or not, talent or not. i am a dedicated rf shooter, it's what i enjoy and this is a hobby for my enjoyment...

+2 Yes, Joe reinforces what's maybe the key point: until you really do know whether you prefer RF or SLR, it's hard to know whether the M9 makes sense for you.

Lencap, your summation is a good and thoughtful one. Best of luck with your decision-making. Shoot plenty of frames and share a few here. It's a great place to improve your pics.

 

[Out to Lunch]

You may as well consider a good second-hand Epson R-d1s which you can find on ebay, or buy with confidence for approximately USD 1,600 through this site: http://www.japanexposures.com/services/#equipment You could also wait for the fixed lens Fuji X100 which announced for early 2011 at USD 1,000 http://www.dpreview.com/news/1009/10091910fujifilmx100.asp

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Just got home from the Playground. New tire Swing. I can still push and take pictures at the same time.


Leica M8 and 1939 CZJ Sonnar "T" 5cm F1.5, at F4.

With the Canon 7, a few years back.

Even older.

 

[lencap]

Again -

Thanks to all for the comments and suggestions. I've bought a few rolls of film, and I'm shooting with the FM2. We'll see where it goes from there.

I still like the idea of a digital Leica, but I'm working through the issues I've outlined earlier. I think that I will not be fully pleased with digital until I can get a full sensor and create a 35/50/90 lens kit with it. Right now that's a bit more of a challenge on the cropped M8, forcing me to compromise on my lens choices. At the cost of Leica lenses that's not an insignificant issue.

By the way, after playing with the FM2 for a while I again realized that regardless of what camera I buy I really like the feel of metal instead of plastic in my hand.

Thanks again to all.

 

[jaapv]

Err.. The M9 is 24x36.😕

 

[35mmdelux]

IF you have to ask, then its prob not for you.

 

[lencap]

I agree thAt my last post wasn't clear. I meant to say that I don't think the m8 will work for me because it isn't a full frame sensor, so my choices are a m7 or m9.

 

[chris00nj]

I agree thAt my last post wasn't clear. I meant to say that I don't think the m8 will work for me because it isn't a full frame sensor, so my choices are a m7 or m9.

First, the M8 wouldnt work for me as well due to the crop factor.

Some things to consider:
1. Everyone will be taking digital photos of him. There might as well be someone who has taken some film images. Then in 30 years, he can hold up the film.
2. What will have the greater longevity? Leica CLEs are still working today, so it's likely the M7 will work. If a digital camera will be working in 30 years, at least you have the best shot with the Leica.
4. As film continues to improve, you always can put new film in the M7.
5. The M9 seems to be a camera that will won't have any major technological upgrades in the near term. There will ineviatbly be an M10, but it will likely be an incremental improvement.
6. Whatever you decide, ignore consideration of the college fund. I use the Leica M3 my grandfather got in the early 60s and used. To me, it's worth a lot more that if he had saved the $100 towards college (A M3 with lens was about $250 back then). Money is just money, but to be able to use something that my grandfather used and enjoyed is invaluable.

I'd go for the M7, basically based on #1.

 

[jaapv]

Shooting both M8 and M9 I disagree firmly with your conclusions. You are too much focussed on FOV of the lenses in relationship to sensor size only. The M9 has decisive advantages over the M8 in high-ISO noise, color gradients, microcontrast and overall image smoothness (not to be confused with digital look - it looks, in fact, more non-digital than the M8.)
On top of that one of the intangibles of Leica lenses are the aberrations in edge rays, sometimes referred to as "Leica Glow" The M8 cuts that off by definition.

 

[Paul Luscher]

I think it depends on what you want.

For me, the M9 was worth it, as it allowed me to use my Leica glass at their proper focal lengths. since I've accumulated a fair amount of that over the years, it made sense to me on a cost/benefit basis.

Also liked not having to use the IR filters of the lenses. Those things aren't cheap. Finally, I liked the "discreet & soft" feature on the camera. Works for me , I shoot often shoot in situations were being quiet and being quick are necessary.

 

[sojournerphoto]

If I kept only one camera I think it would be the M9

Is it worth it - only you can say

Mike

 

[erdnusscn]

My own sad story:

My own sad story:

Yesterday I send my M9 back to the shop where i bought it only two days ago . And I got my money back. The M9 has dead pixels. They can easily be seen up ISO 400.

According to my two-days-lang expriences with the M9. I have to say, it is Not worth the cost. The low solution LCD is not reliable. So that i finally turned the "auto playback" off. The JPEGs out of the camera are not useable. So Shotting DNG it a Must. And The worst thing for me is definitely the quality of the CCD. I will never buy a M9 again, which i think needs a big improvement. I'll wait for the M10 with better LCD and better CCD or CMOS, if they will be better. Leica sucks in the digital age of photography.

 

[user237428934]

Yesterday I send my M9 back to the shop where i bought it only two days ago . And I got my money back. The M9 has dead pixels. They can easily be seen up ISO 400.

According to my two-days-lang expriences with the M9. I have to say, it is Not worth the cost. The low solution LCD is not reliable. So that i finally turned the "auto playback" off. The JPEGs out of the camera are not useable. So Shotting DNG it a Must. And The worst thing for me is definitely the quality of the CCD. I will never buy a M9 again, which i think needs a big improvement. I'll wait for the M10 with better LCD and better CCD or CMOS, if they will be better. Leica sucks in the digital age of photography.

So you bought a very expensive camera and use a lower quality recording mode (=jpg)? This is something you could have known before, if you read some online information. But I see it's your first post.

I don't know if a dead pixel is the same as what I know as hot pixel. You have singular blue or red pixels in your photo. My 5DII has about 8-10 of them but I only see them in long exposure. The nice thing is that Lightroom automatically removes them.

 

[erdnusscn]

I also have the 5d2 and like it very much except its size and weight.

I certainly know i should shot DNGs with a M9 and i did. But the point is, even small camera like Lx3 produces better Jpegs than the M9. In my opinion a better Camera should produces better Image, even in Jpeg format.

And i know exactly the difference between a dead pix and a hot pix. I shot digital since 2003 and have used several digital Cameras such as F717, LX2, Lx3, GRD2, 350d and the 5d2. My dealer did make some test shots yesterday with the M9 which i had returned and he confirmed that there are dead pixels. Otherwise i would change for a new one and would not get my money back.