How tough is the Leica M9?

Y

Yachah

Newbie
Local time
2:36 AM
Joined
Nov 14, 2010
Messages
8
In the past, Leica was at war and was taken to harsh environment.
How about the Leica in a digital age... how tough it is? :bang:
Would it survive the war? and harsh condition?
 
In a war situation it would be best served as a shield, unless you have about 5 backup bodies and maybe 50+ batteries.....

It is no mechanical M and never will be. It is a computer in an M shell. Need I say more? ;)
 
Has anyone tried it?

I'm no war photographer but I don't baby my Leicas. Earlier this year, thousands of miles in 6 weeks, on a 33-year-old motorcycle, to the Baltic at one extreme and the Mediterranean at the other, has left me with no problems with my M8 or M9. On the other had I've no doubt there are people ham-fisted (or simply unlucky) enough to break anything. I've had the 9 since just after they came out, and the M8 since just after they came out.

Without actual evidence, instead of speculation, there's not a lot of content to a thread like this. And, I've no doubt, the pixel-peepers who look for imaginary faults are going to shout louder on the internet than the people who actually use their cameras much.

Cheers,

R..
 
Roger has a good point. I have used my M9 in the rain with no cover etc, but the OP's question as I understand it, is more so in comparison to the mechanical M's. There is no comparison. If water gets inside the M9, it WILL stop working. A mechanical camera in most circumstances (with some care) will still keep ticking away. I don't believe any testing would come up with different results.
 
Stelios said:
check this one http://www.flickr.com/photos/j_lir/5058963877/in/photostream/

Jesse is a member here. this one seems like it's been beaten up a bit, perhaps he could tell you more
Click to expand...

Jesse's camera have been back and forth to Leica many, many times...but maybe he should talk about that.

No electronic cameras will ever be as reliable, when they have computers inside, and not weather sealed. Even my D3s, which is super reliable cannot be depended on like my old M6 cameras.
 
Hi Roger, I know you are an adventurous traveller, lucky guy, now my question: any problem with the rangefinder of m9 ? Do you think it is more/less delicate compared to an m7 (or 6) ?
robert
PS I need to calibrate my m7 at least once a year...
 
leicashot said:
Roger has a good point. I have used my M9 in the rain with no cover etc, but the OP's question as I understand it, is more so in comparison to the mechanical M's. There is no comparison. If water gets inside the M9, it WILL stop working. A mechanical camera in most circumstances (with some care) will still keep ticking away. I don't believe any testing would come up with different results.
Click to expand...

Very true, but then again, it's always a question of how much abuse a camera will take, and of how much of that abuse is handed out by the photographer. I've always like a quote from the late Colin Glanfield: "There are those who can take a camera for a walk around the block, and come back with it looking as if they've covered a war, and those who can cover a war, and come back with a camera that looks as if it has been taken for a walk around the block."

Maybe one of the reasons that Leicas acquired the reputation they did from (say) 1930 to 1960 was that they were used by people who were used to VERY much more fragile cameras, and therefore took more care of their cameras. I honestly have met people (including one 'professional' news photographer on a California newspaper) who thought it was macho to smash up their cameras.

But here's another theory: almost any camera can take far more abuse than most people imagine, but in any given era it's normally only fashionable press cameras (be they Speed Graphics, Rolleis, Leicas, Nikon Fs, digiCanons...) that receive what one might call 'honest' battering.

And, of course, any camera can suffer from bad luck or sheer ham-fistedness. I've seen (amateur) friends break a Nikon F and a Nikonos. When I say 'broken', I mean chunks of light alloy missing from the main casting.

Cheers,

R.
 
robert blu said:
Hi Roger, I know you are an adventurous traveller, lucky guy, now my question: any problem with the rangefinder of m9 ? Do you think it is more/less delicate compared to an m7 (or 6) ?
robert
PS I need to calibrate my m7 at least once a year...
Click to expand...

Dear Robert,

No problems yet with M8 or M9 (or the M8.2 I had on loan for a year), despite tens of thousands of kilometres by 1972 Land Rover 88 and 1978 BMW R100RS in Spain, Andorra, Portugal, France, Italy, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Kosova, Macedonia, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Austria, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Germany, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Belgium, Luxemburg, and the UK.

The M9 hasn't been to all those countries but I think the M8 has. I've never owned an M6 or M7 (i.e. I've never take my own camera on an extended tour, though I've had short-term review cameras) but I own or have owned M2, M3, M4-P and MP as well as the digis, and the viewfinders all seem about equally reliable. I half wonder if more frequent adjustments don't loosen the screws and make it necessary to do adjustments more often...

Cheers,

R.
 
FWIW, the photojournalist Michael Kamber, famous (or infamous) in the Leica world for dissing the M8 (& M7) in a 2008 review (http://web.mac.com/kamberm/Leica_M8_Field_Test,_Iraq/Page_1.html), is now using an M9 (http://blog.leica-camera.com/interviews/an-interview-with-michael-kamber-of-the-new-york-times/). Not sure if this means that he thinks that Leica has improved camera reliability/durability or if he's simply managed to work around reliability/durability problems.

Also, RFF member "tightsqueez" has used the M9 in Afghanistan. In this thread (http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1610937), post #15, he wrote:

"As far as the M9 – NJ fixed it really quickly but I just had it sent to my girlfriend until I returned. Sixty days to go so it’s no sweat. I love the camera but wholeheartedly feel that you need a second one if you want to work reliably. And that goes for any camera I suppose. Just as my first M8 died in Iraq, I threw it back into the bag and picked up the M6/M7."
 
Last edited:
leicashot said:
Roger has a good point. I have used my M9 in the rain with no cover etc, but the OP's question as I understand it, is more so in comparison to the mechanical M's. There is no comparison. If water gets inside the M9, it WILL stop working. A mechanical camera in most circumstances (with some care) will still keep ticking away. I don't believe any testing would come up with different results.
Click to expand...
That being true we are talking about one camera in 70.000 being reported in the forums as having died, and that was condensation, not water ingress, and about three being damaged by water. The number of reports of dunked, soaked or otherwise water-abused M8/M9 cameras that survived run in the dozens.Non-scientific, but maybe an indication?
 
Mine has taken terrible abuse. Stuff my SLR's and even my standard M's could not take. The water would be a problem but what mine has taken has convinced me that is is extremely rugged and the case can take abuse that would make some and me cringe. I didn't buy it to show it off as still new and it doesn't look it. I bought it to use when and how needed.
 
jaapv said:
That being true we are talking about one camera in 70.000 being reported in the forums as having died, and that was condensation, not water ingress, and about three being damaged by water. The number of reports of dunked, soaked or otherwise water-abused M8/M9 cameras that survived run in the dozens.Non-scientific, but maybe an indication?
Click to expand...

and there are many that go unreported in forums...but most importantly, how many M9's do you think are used professionally? Now abuse and being used professionally aren't the same, but they do go hand in hand to an extent. You'll hear of far less M9 failures because most are treated well and not pushed to extremes. There are a lot more Canon users and Nikon users to complain about their cameras when things go wrong.

my own experience in the rain was successful, but the M9 was not built to professional standards like the D3s. It's target market is the more wealthy crowd who take care of their equipment, and in most circumstances, don't 'need' such reliability in extreme conditions....in any case, the ONLY way to assess how well a camera can deal is to go test it for yourself, and never rely on 1 camera in such conditions. Backups are always necessary regardless of the brand or price.

Two things I know for sure.
1. The M9 would not be as reliable as a mechanical camera - more things inside, means more things can 'potentially' go wrong.
2. The price of the M9 reflects it's build quality, not it's reliability - like comparing a reliable Toyota to a BMW which is built with better parts.
 
jamato8 said:
Mine has taken terrible abuse. Stuff my SLR's and even my standard M's could not take. The water would be a problem but what mine has taken has convinced me that is is extremely rugged and the case can take abuse that would make some and me cringe. I didn't buy it to show it off as still new and it doesn't look it. I bought it to use when and how needed.
Click to expand...

I'm intrigued. What couldn't your SLR or 'standard' M take. What broke? What type SLR was it? Which M let you down and why? Did it cost $7000? Was it a pro body SLR?
I'm not having a dig at you personally but a post like this needs some backing up because it doesn't make sense without example.
To the original poster, why ask in the first place? Are you planning a major expedition or do you just want to make sure it doesn't pack up while shooting the kid's birthday parties?
Seriously though, does it matter? I would personally rate any Nikon F, F2, F3, F4, F5, D700, D3 etc, Leica M6, MP above any M8, M9.
Horses for courses. The M8 and M9 are not pro cameras. They are digital M cameras riding on the back of mechanical M camera longevity.
What is toughness? Is it a measure of reliability or is it the ability to take knock after knock, all weather, sand, dust etc and continue to work?
I've had an M9 and all the cameras above and if I was allowed to take one camera and only one to get unrepeatable shots anywhere on the planet it would be any one from the Nikon list or an M6/MP. OK I didn't shoot the M9 a lot but it never gave me the at ease feeling I get from an M6.
I'd bet that a very high percentage of M9 users always have a backup with them because they don't trust them.
If you can afford to get an M9 and not get too annoyed when and if it packs up then go for it. There are plenty that have been reliable under duress but equally there have been plenty of break downs. Some are lucky, others are not.
 
Hmmm...having a rangefinder adjusted every year? Three years now and the M3 is just fine without any adjusting. As it should be.

What am I missing?:confused:
 
To me the obvious achilles heel of the M9 is the rangefinder mechanism ... a couple of good impacts to knock it out of alignment and it's in trouble for accurate focus.

How hard would you have to smack an SLR around before you can't focus it accurately. As crazy as that guy Kai is on Digital Review, that test he did with the two DSLRS was an eye opener. An M9 would have called it quits very early in the piece IMO but those two DSLR's just kept taking photos.
 
These threads like this puzzle me.

I grew up in a blue-collar neighborhood where my dad worked at Nabisco as a machinist for almost 40 years until he retired. The tools he used were both precision and non-precision. But, he took care of them because he had to pay for them and they had to be perfectly useful every single day. He taught me and my brothers and sister that taking care of things is important for many, many reasons. Too many to list but you can guess...:) like reliability, precision performance, etc. They were tools for a lifetime, not a 2 year program before they needed to be upgraded.

So, cameras are precision instruments too and should be working perfectly every single day as far as possible (especially for a professional), with backups for those times they don't.:cool:

All of my photography equipment is treated very well, cleaned, and taken care of as always over the last 40 years I have been in photography. Never had a broken camera because of abuse or neglect. Never had a broken lens because of abuse or neglect. Never even had a camera or lens need a CLA except the Summarit I bought second hand that needed some cleanup by Youxin Ye.

Please explain to me why anyone would abuse photography equipment and NOT take as much care as possible, especially considering the costs these days....:confused: Which leads me to ask why an M9 is not considered a pro camera and why anyone would want the camera to be as "tough" as an M3, M4, etc...I suspect they are in most respects.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom